← 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

Usha Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 44(6), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1233/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Usha Devi, Ito, 30B/78, West Punjabi Bagh, Ward-44(6), Delhi-110026, Delhi. Vs Delhi. Pan- Aafpa1096H Assessee Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

1233/Del/2024 Usha Devi amount deposited was out of cash in hand or brought back from past savings, and therefore, treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 7. Aggrieved

Devenra Kumar Gupta, Rewa vs. ACIT, Circle Satna, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

appellant to explain its unexplained deposits because due to the sudden announcement of demonetization it had no option but to deposit the unexplained money into banking system. What is „real‟ actually is an elaborate design to mislead the revenue authorities and other arms of the Government, conversion of black money

Ram Lakhan Dwivedi, Maihar vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1, Satna

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

ITA 180/JAB/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 Ram Lakhan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer 139, Rohaniya Khurd, Pakaria, Ward-1, Satna Distt-Maihar-485773. Income Tax Office, Civil Lines Chowk, Satna- 485001. Pan:Exmpd6359C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad , Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad , Sr. DR-1
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271ASection 69A

justice. Page 2 of 4 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 7,24,4127/- as unexplained money under sec. 69A of the Income-tax Act,1961 and taxing the same under sec. 115BBE of the Act is uncalled for , unwarranted, most

Nahta Prakash Chand Through Legal Heir Vachan Kumar Nahata, Seoni vs. Assessing Officer, Seoni

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri PC Bardia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 44ASection 69A

Officer issued a notice to the assessee to explain as to why the cash deposited during the demonetization period should not be treated as unexplained money. In response thereto, the assessee stated that the deposit was made out of the cash sale. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept

Triyugi Narayan Dwiwedi, Rewa vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward - 1, Rewa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 137/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Triyugi Narayan Dwivedi V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.03, Bramhan Tola Ward-1 Dhari Khadda, Semariya Distt- Kothi Compound Becides Rewa-486001. Family Court, Rewa- 486001. Pan: Bhbpd4469B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Apoorva Garg, Ca Shri Kng Pillai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 17 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Apoorva Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

passed the assessment order by making addition of Page 3 of 4 Rs.2,65,199/- towards undisclosed cash credits, Rs.10,00,000/- towards unexplained money u/s.69A and Rs.1,18,300/- towards undisclosed agricultural income u/s.56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that sufficient

Surekha Vishnu Phadke, Vasco vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Panaji

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

ITA 228/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of section 69A of the Act and judicial decisions and made addition of unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.10,25,500/- and assessed the total income of Rs.18,69,180/- and passed the order u/sec

Vijay Laxmanrao Peshane, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryvijay Laxmanrao Peshane, Ito, Ward-4(5), Nagpur 1, Gdikhana, Mahal, Nagpur Vs. Pan: Awmpp 5763 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO), vide assessment order dated 23/12/2019 u/sec. 143(3) of the Act, has made addition of Rs. 26,34,000/- being unexplained money u/sec. 69A of the Act against which, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who though issued three notices to the Assessee, however

Sujan Vikas Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Poranki, Krishna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/VIZ/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.41/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Sujan Vikas Mutually Aided Cooperative Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(4) Thrift & Credit Society Limited C.R. Building, Vijayawada-520001 6-32, Bjr Nagar Andhra Pradesh Near Sri Chaitanya Junior College Poranki – 521137 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aajas8586P] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sitaraman & Shri Shankar Cherukupally राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr Ar

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

such deposits are in the normal course of business duly recorded in the books of assessee and can in no way, be termed as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.41/VIZ/2024 Sujan Vikas Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited 3. Even assuming that ... Demonetized notes has ceased to be legal tender, it does not mean that the amount collected by the assessee from its clients would become Unexplained Money. This aspect has been dealt in "Prathamika Krushi Pattina vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward -5, ITA No.593/Bang/2021" and addition deleted

Dabrela Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

ITA 924/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal, C.A. (through V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessment year 2019-20, addition of Rs. 1,38,66,000/- came to be made u/s 69 A of the Act, because of the unexplained money as discussed therein. 3 Dabrela Dugdh UtpadakSahkari Samiti Ltd., Ajmer. 8. Learned CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, while observing

Om Prakash Gupta, Sawai Madhopur vs. DCIT Central Circle -1, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off as under :

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलिय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Naman Hemantbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 531/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 69A

assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, the entire cash deposit of Rs.12,46,000/- during the above period was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 27.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.16,20,880/- 3. Aggrieved

Machindra Baburao Suke, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the observations made in the order

ITA 1245/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Amit Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal raising various issues which revolve around the following three additions confirmed by ld.CIT(A) : (a) Unexplained money u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE – Rs.2,35,000/- (b) Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE – Rs.60,96,240/- (c) Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE – Rs.1,65,900/-. 5. Brief

Suresh Kumar Banthia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Suresh Kumar Banthia Dcit, Central Circle-4(3) 147 Banthia House Mahatma Aayakar Bhavan, Poorva, 110 Gandhi Road, Burra Bazar, Shantipally, E.M. By Pass, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpb2317L Assessee By : S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana, Ars Revenue By : Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

Finally, the ld. AO made an addition of ₹3,01,59,831/- towards using for advancing cash loans by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and ₹4,46,38,775/- was added towards interest earned from advancing of cash loans as unexplained money

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalashok Kumar, Assessment Unit, 19, Sitapur Mazara, Jwalapur, Income Tax Haridwar, Uttarakhand-249407 Vs. Department. Pan-Btupk9604E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pankaj Goel, Adv. Department By Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10271519 Dated 10.04.2025 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Agriculturist Having No Any Other Source Of Income Than Agricultural Income. Since, The Income From Agricultural Operations Is Exempt From Tax, He Was Not Obliged To File The Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That Assessee Has Deposited A Sum Of Rs.76,00,000/- In Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Initiated Reassessment Proceedings In The Case Of Assessee By Recording Reasons That Income To The Extent Of Rs.76,00,000/- Has Escaped Assessment In The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act. Accordingly, Notices U/S 148 Was Issued On 26.03.2022. In Response To Which Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 12.04.2022 Ashok Kumar Vs. Ito Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- From Agriculture Activity & Claimed The Same As Exempt From Tax. The Assessing Officer Passed The Reassessment Order Wherein He Has Made The Additions On Account Of Agriculture Income Of Rs.10,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources & Further Made Additions Of Rs.76,00,000/- Being Cash Deposited During Demonetization As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act. The Ao Further Made Additions Of Rs.2,67,195/- As Against Nil Income Declared Towards Bank Interest.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

treating the same as income from other sources and further made additions of Rs.76,00,000/- being cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The AO further made additions of Rs.2,67,195/- as against Nil income declared towards bank interest. 3. Aggrieved ... order we find that case of the assessee was reopened on the allegation that Rs.76,00,000/- were deposited in cash in bank was unexplained money of the assessee. Once this information was found to be incorrect and addition made on this account was deleted, it is established that reasons

Prashant Gupta L/H of Late Surendra Kumar Gupta, Farrukhabad vs. Income Tax Officer 4(2)(2), Farrukhabad

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

ITA 59/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Prashant Gupta Vs. Ito, Legal Heir Of Late Ward-4(2)(2), Surendra Kumar Farrukhabad Gupta, Bajariya Brandavan, Kamganj, Farrukhabad, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcwpg7301M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

made by the Learned AO on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period in IndusInd Bank Ltd. as unexplained money under Section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Learned ... before the Learned AO. The Learned AO, however, ignored these contentions and proceeded to treat the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115 BBE of the Act and completed the assessment. 6. The revenue’s case is that

Jay Singh, Morena vs. ITO-1, Morena

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

ITA 117/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

adding a sum of Rs 22,01,000/- on account of cash deposits made in the bank account as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. This action of the learned AO was upheld by the learned NFAC. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. This Tribunal

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 555/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

being amount received from brother-in-law as financial help on the occasion of marriage of his daughter as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. ITA No. 555/JP/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19 1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed ... submitted that since as per seized document the alleged amount is a receipt from Sh Sitaram Aggarwal, the same cannot be assessed as unexplained money of assessee. SHRI MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL VS CENTRL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR From the perusal of the facts of the case, it is seen that

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 554/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

being amount received from brother-in-law as financial help on the occasion of marriage of his daughter as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act. ITA No. 555/JP/2025 – A.Y. 2018-19 1. That the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as well as the appellate order passed ... submitted that since as per seized document the alleged amount is a receipt from Sh Sitaram Aggarwal, the same cannot be assessed as unexplained money of assessee. SHRI MAHESH CHANDRA AGARWAL VS CENTRL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR From the perusal of the facts of the case, it is seen that

Rahul Bhowmick (Legal Heir of Fullara Bhowmick, Deceased), Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Rahul Bhowmick (Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Fullara Bjhowmick Deceased), Burdwan S/O. Ratan Bhjowmick, Perbirhata, G Troad, Sripally, Burdwan-713013 Pan/Gir No.Afnpb 0338 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Agrawal, Adv Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.11,20,229/- as Act made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained money u/s.68 of the. 3. Briefly facts are that the assessee filed the return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring total income at Rs.4

Partha Sarkar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1444/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-2019 Partha Sarkar, 57, Parnashree Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1), Pally, Parnashree, Kolkata Kolkata Pan/Gir No.Cghps 7512 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

upholding the assessment order, wherein, the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- has been confirmed as made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed the return of income on 3.8.2018 declaring income of Rs.2 ... reply of the assessee did not find favour of the Assessing Officer and the addition of Rs.11 lakhs was made as unexplained money by passing an order u/s.147 read with section 144 of the Act. P a g e 2 | 4 Assessment Year : 2018-2019 5. In the appellate proceedings