← All Phrases

“unexplained money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69ASection 69A5,888 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained money is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained money

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus of proving the source and nature of any sum of money or receipt found to have been received by them. If the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the receipt, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

Judgments citing unexplained money

Rajamuri Shivaraj, Mahabubnagar vs. ITO., Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 897/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

documentary evidences, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,55,000/- by making addition u/sec.69A of the Act as unexplained money vide his best Judgment assessment order dated 14.03.2022. 3 ITA.No.897/Hyd./2025 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before ... Mohd. Afzal, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer was erred in making addition u/sec.69A of the Act as unexplained money towards cash deposited into bank account amounting to Rs.65,55,000/- without providing 4 ITA.No.897/Hyd./2025 adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee

Ateequr Rahman, Nizamabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 896/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Tejprakash Toshniwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

addition on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.16,55,000/- u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money, vide best Judgment assessment order dated 28.09.2019 passed u/sec.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred ... profit @ 12.5% which works out to Rs.4,30,450/- and addition made on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period as unexplained money amounting to Rs.16,55,000/- u/sec.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but, the learned CIT(A) not even considered the said information while disposing

Kamala Pitaram Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4940/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 80C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of agriculture income of Rs 85,200/-as unexplained money. 6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of deduction under chapter

Priyanka, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(3), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4665/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Priyanka Vs. Ito, Ward 50(3), Block 5/25, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Avnpp5108Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.07.2025 On The Solitary Ground Relating To Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 30,65,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,23,910/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served. The Reasons For Selection Of The Case For Scrutiny Were, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & High Value Receipt Of Cash Shown From Third Parties In Response Data”. The Assessee Was Found To Have Deposited Cash Of Rs. 30,65,000/- During The Demonetization Period In Fy 2016-17 In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Punjab National Bank. The Assessee Claimed That The Said Cash Was Received By Her

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA & Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

sources of the cash such deposits. Hence, he made the addition of Rs. 30,65,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2019 at Rs. 33,88,910/- and the same was taxed u/s. 115BBE @ 60%. However

Subashini Sood, South Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4077/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Subashini Sood, Vs. Dcit, New Delhi C-251, 6Th Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024 (Pan: Ajsp8300A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Agni Choudhary, Adv. & Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca (Thru Vc) & Sh. Rahul Agarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2 Noida Dated 05.10.2024 On The Solitary Ground Relating To Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 11,47,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Act By Treating The Cash Deposit As Unexplained Investment. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 23.10.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,72,210/-. During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs. 11,47,000/- In Her Bank Account During The Demonetization Period, Specifically Between

For Appellant: Ms. Agni Choudhary, Adv. & Sh. RaghavFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 69A

November and December 2016. The AO, not being satisfied with the explanation provided regarding the source of cash deposits, treated the entire amount as unexplained money and added it to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Consequently, the total income was enhanced

Sanjay Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69

quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money paid u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is beyond the scope/ jurisdiction of provisions of section 153A of the Income ... erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money paid u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the addition made is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sanjay Garg, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 8, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2266/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 69

quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money paid u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is beyond the scope/ jurisdiction of provisions of section 153A of the Income ... erred in confirming the addition made by the assessing officer of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained money paid u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, the addition made is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Ravish Vohra, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 161/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

held that the VAT return for the quarter July-September, 2016 was revised by the appellant with the intention to accommodate his unexplained money and therefore addition of Rs.l7,13,484/- u/s 69A of the Act is confirmed. xi. For the balance amount of addition of Rs.25 ... there is no doubt that assessee is carrying out the business and this business involves cash sales. Therefore, addition of Rs.25,86,516/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act is deleted.” 2.2 Accordingly, the assessee is in appeal challenging the addition sustained to the extent of Rs.17

Subhash Shah, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1021/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhsubhash Shah, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), Prop. M/S Fancy Cloth House, Faridabad, Haryana Mfc 5842, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad Haryana (Pan: Aynps4924N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Akul Agarwal, Fca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act As The Same Is Without Forming Reasonable Belief While

For Appellant: Sh. Akul Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

present case before us, the reason to belief formed by the AO is without any basis that the cash deposits is out of unexplained money or deposits. In our view and as discussed above, we find that the cash deposits are out of the sale receipts of business and while

Manju Agarwal, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/O. Sameer Agarwal, Ward-1(2), Near Surya Tower, Old Gwalior High Court Road, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

Authorities below have erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs. 5,47,766/-(8% of Rs. 68,47,079/-) as alleged unexplained money without considering the written submission made during assessment. proceedings and statement of facts given in Form No. 35 and written submission during appellate proceedings ... view of the matter, the Ld. Authorities below have erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs. 7,73,760/-as alleged unexplained money without considering the written submission made during assessment proceedings and Manju Agarwal statement of facts given in Form No. 35 and written submission during appellate

Bhim Singh, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.740/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhim Singh C-24, Ambabari Metal Colony Jaipur - 302 023 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: CFRPS 5909A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

bank deposits of SBN whereas on source of money could not be subject matter of application of provisions of Sec. 69A (unexplained money etc.) 2.1 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... returns filed and alsodoes not commensurate with the income profile. Thus, I find that the AO was justified in treating the cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A. Ground No. 1 is accordingly dismissed. 16. In Ground No. 2, the appellant contended that since the AO has neither rejected

Bharatbhai Raghavbhai Jograna, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1345/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 270ASection 69A

source of the cash and other credits by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the total amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same under section 115BBE of the Act at the applicable higher rate. The AO also

Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2213/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / .Ita No.2213/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Devraj Vishwasrao Ito, Ward-3, Satara Jadhav, R. No. 06, S. No. 24, Vs. Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune-411021 Maharashtra Pan-Aebpj6968F अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Dr. Prayag Jha Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08-09-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.09.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Dated 14.03.2023. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Arguments & Submissions Made By The Assessee & Dismissing All The Grounds Taken In Appeal. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Assessing Officer Had Not Served On The Assessee The Statutory Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The It Act & Therefore, The Impugned Order Was Passed Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

made addition of Rs.36,35,415/- being cost of equity share purchased through his bank account and the amount was not unexplained money liable to tax under section 69A of the IT Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO F had made addition ... including the addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 80,11,889/- and Rs. 74,44,000/- addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 36,35,415/- and also the addition for denying the short term capital loss

Gani Lathifsahib Shakila Banu, Trichy vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1952/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1952/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gani Lathifsahib Shakila Banu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 12, A1, First Main Road, Ward 1(2), Ramalinga Nagar, Woriur S.O., Tiruchirappalli. Tiruchirappalli 620 003. [Pan:Bffps0785F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Aarif, Cma Advocate & Ms. Keerthana, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 465 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Aarif, CMA Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT
Section 69A

Kure, JCIT did report any objection. 6. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act for want of evidence, which is admitted by the ld. AR. The ld. AR referred to page

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kolar Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1978/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.1978/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Dy. Commissioner Of V/S. M/S. Kolar Paper Mills Income Tax, Circle बिाम Ltd. 2(1)(1), Mumbai A 404, Twin Tower Chs Ltd, Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, Lokhandwala, 2Nd Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near, Apna Ghar Andheri Road, Mumbai 400020 West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck8381N Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Majetia, Ca Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: 26.08.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Majetia, CAFor Respondent: 26.08.2025
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69CSection 80G

order of Ld. AO and argued that since the assessee had given bogus donation, therefore, the AO was justified in treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On the other hand, Ld. AR has argued that the sum of Rs. 49 lacs was disallowed ... present case, undisputedly, the appellant has paid donation of Rs. 49,00,000/- from its bank account. Therefore, there is no question of any unexplained money. Accordingly, the addition u/s, 69A of the Act is also unwarranted on the said basis. Further. The AO did not bring out on record

Aneesh Traders, Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 17(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1298/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aneesh Traders, Ito Circle 17(1)(1), 502/504 Dilrag, Presidency Kautilya Bhavan, Society, Jvpd Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400049. Pan No. Aaafa 1935 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prateek Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

being cash deposited in being cash deposited in Bank Account, by treating the sa Bank Account, by treating the same as unexplained money u/s me as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the reasons stated in 69A of the Income ... section 69A of the Act, treating the sum of Officer invoked section 69A of the Act, treating the sum of ₹72,40,000/- as unexplained money, and applied tax under section as unexplained money, and applied tax under section as unexplained money, and applied tax under section 115BBE

Mohd Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward 1, Yavatmal

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 321/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 69A

affirmed the addition of = 1,10,00,867, under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") being unexplained money. The assessee has claimed that he was working in a Footwear Shop on behalf of Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, and was collecting and depositing money on behalf

Mohd Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward 1, Yavatmal

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 320/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 69A

affirmed the addition of = 1,10,00,867, under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") being unexplained money. The assessee has claimed that he was working in a Footwear Shop on behalf of Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, and was collecting and depositing money on behalf

Mohd Siraj Haji Mohd Yasin Abala, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward 1, Yavatmal

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 319/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 69A

affirmed the addition of ` 1,10,00,867, under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") being unexplained money. The assessee has claimed that he was working in a Footwear Shop on behalf of Janta Marketing, Yavatmal, and was collecting and depositing money on behalf

Kanhaiya Lal Khetan, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi/ ITO-3(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 253(3)Section 69A

determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,19,49,748/- by making addition of Rs.8,02,83,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee