← 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

Shashi Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ITO, Lucknow

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

ITA 353/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 694ASection 69A

facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition of Rs 5,00,00,000/- by treating the investment in property as Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961. 8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax NFAC has failed to appreciate the investment in property ... Rs.5,00,00,000/-by making an addition u/s 69A amounting to Rs 5,00,00,000/- treating the investment in property to be Unexplained money. The appellant was served a Notice u/s 148 on 20/02/2022 and the reasons recorded for reopening, as intimated to the appellant, are as under

Gulamahemad Hamidulla Khan, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 165/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

r.w.s. 144B of the Act and made an addition of Rs.2,20,79,550/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits, to the returned income of Rs.4 ... view of the provisions of section 69A of the Act. In the above context, Rs. 2,20,79,550/- is treated as his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee to be taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE

Nexgen Animators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 782/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 782/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69A

vide order dated 18.09.2019. In the said assessment order, the AO added entire cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s.144 of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, assessee

Sri. Gururaja Traders, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 506/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri R. Chandrashekhar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessee’s cash in hand as on 8.11.2016 and the balance amount of Rs.38,25,000/- was treated as unexplained money out of the total cash deposited amounting to Rs. 50,25,000/- and added back u/s 69A of the Act as income of the assessee firm. 4. Aggrieved

Arun Kumar Natrarajan, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 489/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri N. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 3Section 69ASection 69B

Unisys 31,917/- Global Services India as per Form 16 submitted by assessee 4. Variation in respect of cash deposit being 14,50,000/- unexplained money u/s 69A 5. Variation in respect of unexplained 22,30,000/- investment u/s 69B 6. Variation in respect of Salary from 97,732/- Vodaphone

Bhavana Manoj Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4581/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhavana Manoj Singh, Flat No. 404, Kamal Apartment, Lokhandwala Complex, Opp. Rna Market, Azad Nagar, ............... Appellant Mumbai-400053. Pan : Bchps6429M V/S Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400012. Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

before the CITA were not considered. C. The appellant, therefore, prays that addition of Rs. 71,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money may please be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, and / or amend the above grounds of appeal.” 3. We have considered

Anwar Ismail Agwan, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2518/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalanwar Ismail Agwan, Noor Mohammad Chawl, Nr. Ajit Galss Oshiwara, S.V. Road, Jogeshwari West, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400102 Pan : Acwpa3632N V/S Ito, Ward-24(1)(2) ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CA (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

made the addition of the entire sum of Rs.15,15,000/- under section 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money. The assessee’s plea before the learned CIT(A) that cash deposited during the year under consideration was from the cash withdrawal from the bank account

DCIT- Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Radhamohan Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 3 of the revenue challenging the decision of ld

ITA 1600/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Radhamohan Marketing Mumbai Private Limited Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Vs. Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent) C.O. No. 88/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1600/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Radhamohan Marketing Private Dcit - Central Circle-3(4), Limited Mumbai Room No. 25, Shanti Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Near Brijwasi Sweet 198, Vs. Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai – 400002. Pan/Gir No. Aafcr5067C (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 250Section 69A

various observations to hold that the cash found was not linked with sale of stock and hence made addition of such cash found as unexplained money in the hands of the appellant. The AO observed that there were certain inconsistencies in the statement of Mr. Abnish Gupta recorded ... sale proceeds but out of some other unaccounted transaction. Hence, he taxed the cash of Rs. 1,00,10,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. A separate addition of 1% of GP on sale of unaccounted stock was also made which is already discussed above

Mr Abhishek Raesh Raikar, Margao vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Margao

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

ITA 15/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

submissions and was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of section 69A of the Act and made addition of unexplained money of Rs.20,78,000/- and assessed the total income of 3 ITA. No. 15/PAN 2024. Abhishek Ramesh Raikar.. Rs.26,53,340/- and passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Ambedkar Circle vs. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 621/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 292CSection 40A(2)Section 68

treated as books of accounts and technically the provisions of section 68 is not applicable, even then the amount needs to be taxed as unexplained money in the possession of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. 7. Thus, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has in principal

Kwality Overseas Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

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

ITA 553/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 553/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 Kwality Overseas Private Limited 863, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana बनाम The DCIT Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AABCK6381J अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/08/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(b)Section 69Section 69A

dated 23.11.2019 was also issued proposing additions of Rs.1,96,07,905/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 and Rs.5,81,11,290/- as unexplained money under Section 69A; however, no compliance was made. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144 read with Section 147, determining

Ratan Kisan Borade, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 949/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law lower authorities have erred in making an addition of Rs. 20,26,700/- u/s 69A - Unexplained Money, being summations of certain cash deposits/credit entries in bank account by rejecting the appellant's submission and further erred in not appreciating that there were cash

Ganpat Vasant Randive, Village - Tungat, Taluka - Pandharpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1940/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Banis (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, DR (virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

were issued and served upon the assessee. Due to non-compliance, Ld.AO completed the assessment, making the addition of Rs.10,53,200/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. In the appeal preferred before the Ld.CIT(A), no relief was granted as the assessee again failed to appear

Annapureddy Venkatramireddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

ITA 831/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us :

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

cash deposit of Rs.26.38 lacs (supra) was forthcoming, held the entire amount of Rs.1.77 crores as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the assessee despite having been ... held the entire amount of credits in his bank account of Rs.1,77,54,144/-(supra), as having been sourced out of his unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Apart from that it 7 Annapureddy Venkatramireddy transpires that for the failure on the part of the assessee to participate

Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu, Sanga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-1, Sanga Reddy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 705/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.705/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Sanga Reddy. Brahmarauthu, Sanga Reddy. Pan:Avppb2671L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.11.2023 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

return of income nor furnished any documentary evidence to explain the deposits, the Ld. AO treated the entire deposits of Rs.35,05,008/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act ITA No.705/Hyd/2025 4 vide order

Sunil Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 616/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, Rajesh VaishnavFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

submissions, the appellant argued that, since he had admitted the seized cash as business income, the Assessing Officer should not treat the same as unexplained money and pleaded that the addition be deleted. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee noted that, in order to generate

Vijayanand Nithyanand, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

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

ITA 488/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.488/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Vijayanand Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2, Chittoor. Nithyananad, Chittoor. Pan:Aedpn7704H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri L. Damodara, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Vijayanand Nithyanand (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Gurugram, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 28.01.2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri L. Damodara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

deposits. However, the assessee could not produce the cash book before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO therefore treated the deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2019, making addition of Rs.7

Kiran Reddy Visireddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1131/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: MS U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

file any information to substantiate his case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.22,75,34,112/- as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards cash deposits and other credits as against the not filing the return of income ... authorities below. We find that, the Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte assessment order and made addition of Rs.22,75,34,112/- as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards cash deposits and other credits into the bank account of the assessee. Before the 7 ITA.No.1131/Hyd

Potu Janardhan Rao, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1072/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us: 2. Succinctly Stated, The Ao, Based On Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs. 1.08 Crores In His Current Account With Andhra Bank (Now Union Bank Of India) & Made Withdrawals Of Rs. 93.24 Lacs From The Said Bank Account, Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

plausible explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 54 lsacs (supra), held the same as having been sourced out of the unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. However, the A.O considering the fact that the assessee had disclosed an income of Rs.1.80

Sudhakar Akutota, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 1068/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1068/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Shri Sudhakar Akutota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan: Abapa0044M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Sudhakar Akutota (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 05.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 296 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Accompanied By An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorised

For Appellant: Shri A. V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Rs.1,65,68,373/- in the bank accounts of the assessee, which remained unexplained. The Ld. AO accordingly treated the said amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO also noted that the assessee was in receipt of rental income of Rs.2 ... Rs.5,010/- during the ITA No.1068/Hyd/2025 6 year under consideration. Since these amounts were also not explained, the same were brought to tax as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B