← 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

Chandra Prakash Jain, Jaipur vs. Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld
Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

accommodation entries without any tangible evidence or specific transaction support. This addition, based solely on assumptions, violates Section 37 (allowable expenses) and Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra

M/S. Nanak Chand Associates, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1419/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

source of the cash deposits were explained, therefore, the AO asked the assessee as to why these amounts should not be treated as unexplained expenditure and added back u/s 69C of the Act in the hands of the assessee. As no explanation was tendered by the assessee thus ... made the addition of Rs. 30.00 lacs by treating the same as unexplained expenditure. Before ld. CIT(A) assessee claimed that these amounts were given by Shri Madan Lal who was financer of the partners of the assessee firm and help them in crucial time. The cash was given

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Dulhe Ram Meena, Jaipur

ITA 288/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 84,285/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... Ground of Appeal: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition of unexplained expenditures of Rs.84,285/-by the AO u/s 69C of the 1.T.Act, 1961"  The CIT (A) has deleted the addition without appreciating the facts stated

ITO, Ward-2(1), Ludhiana vs. Ashwani Kumar Jain, Ludihana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/CHANDI/2024[2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Balbir Khanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

made through Shri. Manoj Kumar Gupta towards import of hosiery items which may be treated as purchases, the same is treated as unexplained expenditure of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act and brought to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act.” 5. Dissatisfied with the addition, assessee carried the matter ... assessment year. The appellant provided documentary evidence showing that no foreign remittances were made, and there were no transactions that could be classified as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies when an assessee incurs an expenditure

Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1702/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava
Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as much as confirming the addition of Rs.50,24,589/- u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure made by the learned AO without considering the facts that the appellant has neither received a cash loan of Rs.10,45,00,000/- from ... Patel, during the impugned year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹50,24, 589/- towards cash payment of interest as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of ₹10.54 crores towards cash loan by holding that since

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1578/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava
Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as much as confirming the addition of Rs.50,24,589/- u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure made by the learned AO without considering the facts that the appellant has neither received a cash loan of Rs.10,45,00,000/- from ... Patel, during the impugned year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹50,24, 589/- towards cash payment of interest as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of ₹10.54 crores towards cash loan by holding that since

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) -1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1577/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR & B.P. Srivastava
Section 10(2)(xv)Section 3(2)Section 3(3)Section 3(5)Section 37

Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts as much as confirming the addition of Rs.50,24,589/- u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure made by the learned AO without considering the facts that the appellant has neither received a cash loan of Rs.10,45,00,000/- from ... Patel, during the impugned year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer also made addition of ₹50,24, 589/- towards cash payment of interest as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition of ₹10.54 crores towards cash loan by holding that since

ITO, Ward-4(4), Gurgaon vs. Tribhawan Kumar Parnami, Gurgaon

ITA 2120/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbc World India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.40,26,506/- being disallowance of 10% of the total unexplained expenditure incurred in relation to service fee and job work? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... assessee by deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.2.94,40,000/- being disallowance of 10% of the total disproportionately increased unexplained expenditure as compared to the previous year? 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC has erred

Paresh Dayashankar Madeka, C/O Rolex Rings Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

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

ITA 424/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 Paresh Dayashankar Madeka .......... Appellant Gondal Road, Village Kotharia, Rajkot 360004 [Pan: Acxpm6013G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-2(2)(3), Rajkot Appellant By: -------None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: -------None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

While doing so, the AO made additions of Rs. 18,67,000/- on account of accommodation loan and Rs. 28,005/- as unexplained expenditure by way of commission. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

were invoked to treat the share application/premium received from these non-existent entities as unexplained cash credits. Additionally, Section 69C was applied for unexplained expenditure on commissions paid to entry operators. 5. Rebuttal of Assessee’s Reply The assessee’s arguments regarding transactions being genuine, supported by banking channels

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

were invoked to treat the share application/premium received from these non-existent entities as unexplained cash credits. Additionally, Section 69C was applied for unexplained expenditure on commissions paid to entry operators. 5. Rebuttal of Assessee’s Reply The assessee’s arguments regarding transactions being genuine, supported by banking channels

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

were invoked to treat the share application/premium received from these non-existent entities as unexplained cash credits. Additionally, Section 69C was applied for unexplained expenditure on commissions paid to entry operators. 5. Rebuttal of Assessee’s Reply The assessee’s arguments regarding transactions being genuine, supported by banking channels

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

were invoked to treat the share application/premium received from these non-existent entities as unexplained cash credits. Additionally, Section 69C was applied for unexplained expenditure on commissions paid to entry operators. 5. Rebuttal of Assessee's Reply The assessee’s arguments regarding transactions being genuine, supported by banking channels

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva Kol vs. Sita Ram Pareek, Burrabazar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 653/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.378/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sitaram Pareek………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.653/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata ………………....………......................……….……Appellant Vs. Sitaram Pareek..............…..….…..…..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Appearances By: Shri Anup Sanghai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 29.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Order Of The Ld.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

growers/cultivators for which the assessee has not kept proper records. Finally, the entire cash withdrawals of Rs.4,66,71,960/- has been treated as unexplained expenditure and added the same u/s 68 to the total income of the assessee in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

Sitaram Pareek, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 378/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.378/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sitaram Pareek………………....…………...………......................……….……Appellant Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.653/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata ………………....………......................……….……Appellant Vs. Sitaram Pareek..............…..….…..…..........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Ca Anup Kumar Sanghai Sanghai & Co, Ca 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Alqpp5688N] Appearances By: Shri Anup Sanghai, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 29.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Order Of The Ld.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

growers/cultivators for which the assessee has not kept proper records. Finally, the entire cash withdrawals of Rs.4,66,71,960/- has been treated as unexplained expenditure and added the same u/s 68 to the total income of the assessee in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat vs. Dhiraj Sons Super Market, Surat

In the result, ground No. 2 is also dismissed

ITA 553/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 553/Srt/2024 (Ay 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhiraj Sons Super Market, Surat 1(3)(1), Surat, Room No.203, C/O Dhiraj Sons Super Store, बनाम Income Tax Office, Anavil Samarth Sarathi Apartment, Parle, Vs Building, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Point, Surat-395 007 [Pan : Aaifd 6720 A] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 69A

addition is based thoroughly on assumption basis, which is not justified thereby deleted the entire addition. 6. On the addition on account of unexplained expenditure in fixed asset, assessee stated that in response to show cause notice, assessee has explained that assessee did not own any immovable property

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

nature of the transaction which he fails to discharge. In view of the above discussion, the payment of Rs. 66,000/- was considered as unexplained expenditure of the assessee and addition was made in the total income of the assessee as per provisions of section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE ... proper justification, assessee was asked to show cause as to why the payment of Rs. 50,000/- may not be treated as his unexplained expenditure and may not be added in your total income for the year under consideration. In response to the notice the A/R of the assessee filed

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

nature of the transaction which he fails to discharge. In view of the above discussion, the payment of Rs. 66,000/- was considered as unexplained expenditure of the assessee and addition was made in the total income of the assessee as per provisions of section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE ... proper justification, assessee was asked to show cause as to why the payment of Rs. 50,000/- may not be treated as his unexplained expenditure and may not be added in your total income for the year under consideration. In response to the notice the A/R of the assessee filed

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

nature of the transaction which he fails to discharge. In view of the above discussion, the payment of Rs.66,000/- was considered as unexplained expenditure of the assessee and addition was made in the total income of the assessee as per provisions of section 69C r.w.s.115BBE ... proper justification, assessee was asked to show cause as to why the payment of Rs. 50,000/- may not be treated as his unexplained expenditure and may not be added in your total income for the year under consideration. In response to the notice the A/R of the assessee filed