← All Phrases

“unexplained expenditure”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69CSection 69C3,276 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained expenditure is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained expenditure

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. M.K. Brothers
163 ITR 249 · 1987 · High Court
262
citing judgments

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT
84 Taxmann.com 195 · 2017 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

CIT v. La Medica
250 ITR 575 · 2001 · High Court
150
citing judgments

When purchases are shown to be non-genuine, the entire amount is to be disallowed as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, irrespective of whether the goods were procured from alternative sources.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT
58 Taxmann.com 44 · 2015 · High Court
140
citing judgments

When an assessee makes alleged bogus or hawala purchases but subsequently makes genuine sales from those purchases, the addition to income should be restricted only to the estimated profit embedded in such transactions, not the entire purchase value.

N.K. Industries Ltd. v. DCIT
72 Taxmann.com 289 · 2016 · High Court
127
citing judgments

When there is a categorical finding that purchases are bogus and from fictitious suppliers, the Assessing Officer is justified in making a 100% addition of the bogus purchase amount under Section 69C, rather than restricting the disallowance to merely the profit margin. This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the assessee's SLP.

Judgments citing unexplained expenditure

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 616/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

three counts. First, unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-; second, unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs. 73,00,000/-; and third, unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of Rs.18,26,044/-. It is worth noting that not only the addition has been made for loan taken by the assessee ... assessee. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, since these loans were treated as non-genuine, the interest payment thereon was added as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C. 7.2. Ld. CIT(A) has given his fact-based findings on the submissions made by the assessee. From the perusal of the same

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 613/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

three counts. First, unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-; second, unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs. 73,00,000/-; and third, unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of Rs.18,26,044/-. It is worth noting that not only the addition has been made for loan taken by the assessee ... assessee. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, since these loans were treated as non-genuine, the interest payment thereon was added as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C. 7.2. Ld. CIT(A) has given his fact-based findings on the submissions made by the assessee. From the perusal of the same

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Calculus Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 612/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

three counts. First, unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of Rs. 1,45,00,000/-; second, unexplained investment u/s.69 of Rs. 73,00,000/-; and third, unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of Rs.18,26,044/-. It is worth noting that not only the addition has been made for loan taken by the assessee ... assessee. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, since these loans were treated as non-genuine, the interest payment thereon was added as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C. 7.2. Ld. CIT(A) has given his fact-based findings on the submissions made by the assessee. From the perusal of the same

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Suresh Malhotra, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4638/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Suresh Malhotra Partner M/S Sai Nath Sector-6, Panipat Vs. Industries Kabri Road, Haryana-132103. Kacha Phatak, Industial Area, Panipat Haryana-132103. Pan:Aaqpm3214N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Shilpi Jain Department By Shri Manish Gupta Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10236779 Dated 05.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act Dated 23.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 27.09.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,00,460/-. Subsequently, Ao Received Information That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entries Managed By One Sh. Rajesh Mittal In The Shape Of Bogus Bills Of Purchase From Three Different Parties Managed & Run By Shri Rajesh Mittal Amounting To Rs.95,48,153/-. Based On Such Information, Ao Initiated Reassessment Proceedings After Taking Approval From Competent Authority & Notice U/S 148

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

time and finally assessment was completed where the AO had treated the entire purchases from these three parties of Rs.95,48,153/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and further added sum of Rs.1,57,968/- on account of amount received on LIC maturity, thus, total income

Deepak Pawar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 43, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3552/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshdeepak Pawar, Vs. Acit, 4/47, First Floor, Circle-43, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Avapp4384P Assessee By : Ms. Ragini Handa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

Ground Nos. 1 to 12 are as to whether the ld NFAC was justified in confirming the addition made on account of purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused ... value of purchase from M/s. RK Polymers as tainted and bogus and accordingly made addition u/s 69C of the Act, treating the same as unexplained expenditure and made an addition of ₹26,17,470/- (12.5% of 2,09,39,760/-). 4. The ld CIT(A) sought to disturb the profit

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Mahavir Singhal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3428/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Vs. Mahavir Singhal Delhi 149, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.411/D/2025 (In Ita No.3428/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mahavir Singhal Vs. Ito 149, Tarun Enclave, Delhi Pitampura, Delhi-34 Pan No.Aixps8088B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 142Section 143Section 69C

facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,47,666/-u/s 69C of IT Act 1961 on account of unexplained expenditure for sale/purchase of penny stock shares amounting to Rs. 2,47,666/- during the FY 2013-14 by ignoring the fact that the information, enquiries, studies ... facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,47,666/-u/s 69C of IT Act 1961 on account of unexplained expenditure for sale/purchase of penny stock shares amounting to Rs. 2,47,666/- during the FY 2013-14 by ignoring the fact that assessee has not provided

DCIT, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 2441/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

substantive grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the laws, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 60,00,038/-, which is from undisclosed income, as his business receipt/expense and has decided profit @ 12% of these transactions. The decision ... 2117/Del/2022 wherein its first and foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings restricting the Assessing Officer's action making unexplained expenditure addition of Rs. 60,00,038/- in assessment year to 12% thereof; coming to Rs.7,20,004/- in question; reading as under

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2120/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

substantive grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the laws, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 60,00,038/-, which is from undisclosed income, as his business receipt/expense and has decided profit @ 12% of these transactions. The decision ... 2117/Del/2022 wherein its first and foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings restricting the Assessing Officer's action making unexplained expenditure addition of Rs. 60,00,038/- in assessment year to 12% thereof; coming to Rs.7,20,004/- in question; reading as under

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2119/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

substantive grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the laws, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 60,00,038/-, which is from undisclosed income, as his business receipt/expense and has decided profit @ 12% of these transactions. The decision ... 2117/Del/2022 wherein its first and foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings restricting the Assessing Officer's action making unexplained expenditure addition of Rs. 60,00,038/- in assessment year to 12% thereof; coming to Rs.7,20,004/- in question; reading as under

DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2118/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

substantive grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the laws, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 60,00,038/-, which is from undisclosed income, as his business receipt/expense and has decided profit @ 12% of these transactions. The decision ... 2117/Del/2022 wherein its first and foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings restricting the Assessing Officer's action making unexplained expenditure addition of Rs. 60,00,038/- in assessment year to 12% thereof; coming to Rs.7,20,004/- in question; reading as under

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sharma, Delhi

ITA 2117/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

substantive grounds: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the laws, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the unexplained expenditure of Rs. 60,00,038/-, which is from undisclosed income, as his business receipt/expense and has decided profit @ 12% of these transactions. The decision ... 2117/Del/2022 wherein its first and foremost substantive ground seeks to reverse the CIT(A)'s findings restricting the Assessing Officer's action making unexplained expenditure addition of Rs. 60,00,038/- in assessment year to 12% thereof; coming to Rs.7,20,004/- in question; reading as under

Moureen Camara, Panaji vs. Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi

ITA 200/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 200/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Moureen Camara Lonic Apartment, 1St Floor, Albamar Road, Tiswadi, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Abmpc9038M . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057640303(1) Dt. 02/11/2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Stemmed From Assessment Order Dt. 20/09/2021 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.

For Appellant: Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 5A

Page 2 of 16 Moureen Camara Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.200/PAN/2023 AY: 2016-17 duties payment amounting to ₹1,17,82,160/- was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and by virtue of section 5A of the Act only 50% of such unexplained expenditure ... year under consideration, the Ld. NFeAC culminated the re- assessment proceedings wherein such balance import/custom duty of ₹58,91,080/- treated likewise as unexplained expenditure of the assessee and added same to total income in the hands of assessee while making an assessment u/s 147 r.w.s

A and J Industrial and Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Jaipur

ITA 85/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR, &
Section 143(2)Section 153A

Rs.29,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee, as provided u/s 69C of the Act, the said amount being unexplained expenditure. 10. As per assessment order, the total income of the assessee came to be tabulated as under:- "In view of the above discussions, the total income ... Rs.29,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee, as provided u/s 69C of the Act, the said amount being unexplained expenditure. 10. As per assessment order, the total income of the assessee came to be tabulated as under:- "In view of the above discussions, the total income

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, Ambedkar Circle vs. A and J Industrial and Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Jhotwara

ITA 269/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR, &
Section 143(2)Section 153A

Rs.29,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee, as provided u/s 69C of the Act, the said amount being unexplained expenditure. 10. As per assessment order, the total income of the assessee came to be tabulated as under:- "In view of the above discussions, the total income ... Rs.29,60,000/- to the total income of the assessee, as provided u/s 69C of the Act, the said amount being unexplained expenditure. 10. As per assessment order, the total income of the assessee came to be tabulated as under:- "In view of the above discussions, the total income

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Imranbhai Umarbhai Qureshi, Banaskantha

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1605/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S N Divetia, AR & Shri Samir
Section 250Section 69C

facts in deleting the addition made by AO on account of cash withdrawal of Rs.8,89,36,000/- treated as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of IT Act? (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing ... huge cash withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account amounting in to Rs. 8,89,36,000/- treated as unexplained expenditure of the assessee by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Act and added to its income which, in turn, was deleted

Late Parasmal Hangamilal Jain Through Wife and Legal Heir, Mrs. Chhaya Parasmal Jain, Raigad vs. Itd, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1064/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms Vidhi Solani (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

following additions: i) Unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A Rs.5,00,000/- ii) Unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 Rs.96,14,000/- iii) Unexplained expenditure towards stamp duty and registration charges u/s 69C Rs.5,76,840/- 3 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3903/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

considering that this was not a case of considering that this was not a case of percentage of gross profit but of an unexplained expenditure percentage of gross profit but of an unexplained expenditure percentage of gross profit but of an unexplained expenditure in books which was incurred Reuting laws

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anita Dinesh Dhokar, Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

allowed, by rejecting the Hon'ble ITAT decision of estimating the profit rate @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction of such unexplained expenditure incurred u/s 69C of the Act, even though, the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove genuineness of alleged purchases and has offered

Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

considering that this was not a case of considering that this was not a case of percentage of gross profit but of an unexplained expenditure percentage of gross profit but of an unexplained expenditure percentage of gross profit but of an unexplained expenditure in books which was incurred Reuting laws

Shri Lakhbir Singh, Taran Taran vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Tarn Taran

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

ITA 357/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69A

HDFC Bank to Axis Bank and again transfer it to his spouse name and transfer of Rs.14,75,220/- towards residential house payment as unexplained expenditure. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal