“cash found during search”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132128 judgments

MERIDIAN MARKETERS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1879/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1879/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2022-2023 Meridian Marketers, The Acit, Hyderabad. Telangana. Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Pin 500 033. Hyderabad. Pan Abmfm1321M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan S A, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Hyderabad erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.35,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer treating the cash found during search as unexplained money u/s 69A. Ground No.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Hyderabad erred in not considering the fact that

RAKESH KUMAR VOHRA,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, C.R. BUILDING CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.5.50 Lacs u/s 69A which represent cash found during search on the assessee. The Ld. AR sought telescoping benefit out of surrender made by the partnership firm in which the assessee acted as partner to the extent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. GAURAV DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

order) of Shri Mridu Hari Dalmia it may be observed that it has been admitted by ld AO that: i) Cash found during search pertains to A Y 2021-22 ii) The cash found is not related to wave group as the addition has been made ... respect of cash found during search separately. In view of the above the Id AO wrongly made adverse observation on the basis of cash found during search the addition in respect of which has been made separately in the A Y 2021-22 in the hands of Shri Mridu Hari

DCIT-CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AKSHAY JAYANTILAL DOSHI, MUMBAI

ITA 6136/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit-Cc-8(4), Akshayjayantilaldoshi Mumbai 701, Bhoomibldg, Jvpd Room No. 658, 6Th Vs. Scheme Vileparle, Floor, Mumbai- 400056 Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai- 400020, Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aahpd2867K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshay Jain Revenue By Shrisurendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar,Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)–50, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 31.07.2025, For Assessment Year 2022–23, Whereby The Learned Cit(A) Deleted The Addition Of Rs. 1,25,64,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Vide Order Dated 02.06.2023 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

accounts of various group entities as on the date of search was Rs. 2,16,68,169/-, which was more than the total cash found during search at different premises amounting to Rs. 2,15,77,500/-. The assessee also furnished details of cash-in-hand of family members ... books of accounts of various group entities as on the date of search was Rs. 2,16,68,169/-, whereas the total cash found during search was Rs. 2,15,77,500/-, and therefore the cash found was fully explained. It was further submitted that the books of accounts

USHA GIRDHARILAL JHUNJHUNWALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3499/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 69A

lower appellate discussion reading\nas under:\n“6 In Ground No 4 the appellant has contested the addition on account\nof cash found during search of Rs 54,13,000 u/s 69A of the Income\nTax Act.\n6.1 During the course of the search and seizure action, cash ... premise of Mr. Ashish\nJhunjhunwala (son of the appellant)\n6.13 As per the appellant it has been admitted in the impugned order\nthat cash found during search was the accumulation of her past\nsavings of household expenditure given to her for day to day for\nrunning of house

K C RAJU MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

based solely on the statement recorded during the search but was supported by seized material, parallel books of account, cash found during search, and consistent admissions by the assessee. The explanation offered by the assessee was found to be unsatisfactory and unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action ... that the addition of ₹1,20,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Act is unsustainable in law and on facts. The cash found during search is fully explained and already offered to tax as part of regular business income. Therefore, the assessee prays that the learned

K C RAJU MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1055/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM\nIT(SS)A No.86 to 89/KOL/2025, 2007/KOL/2025\n(Assessment Year: 2017-18 to 2020-21, 2021-22)\nAmar Kumar Agarwal\nC/o M/s Salarpuria Jajodia&\nCO.7, CR Avenue, 3rd Floor,\nKolkata-700072, West Bengal\n(Appellant)\nDCIT, CC 4(3)\nAaykarBhawanPoorva,\nVs.110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass,\nKolkata-700107, West Bengal\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. ADDPA3301L\nITA Nos.1496,1497,1498, 1499/KOL/2025, & 1440/KOL/2025\n(Α.Υ.: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21,

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

115BBE", "292C" ], "issues": "Whether undisclosed receipts from battery sales should be taxed on total receipts or profit? Whether unexplained jewellery and cash found during search are to be added to income

GHANSHYAM PRASAD GUPTA,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 132(1)

though the HUF was not assessed to tax.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "132", "132(1)" ], "issues": "Discrepancies in jewellery valuation and the ownership of cash found during search

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

ITA 1142/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Civil\nlines, Jaipur\nTotal\nRs.1,55,50,000/-\nThe assessee, in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) dated 06.09.2018 with\nreference to the cash found in search at the business premises, stated that he is\nalso engaged in the business of finance brokerage in his personal capacity. The\nmodus operandi ... than without bring\nany corroborative evidence on record and again making addition of\nRs.1,56,15,565/- u/s 69A on account cash found during search would tantamount\nto double addition of Income, which is against the principle of natural justice.\nIn view of above, it is submitted that additional income

RITU SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

accounts.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "147", "69A", "40A(2)", "37" ], "issues": "Whether the amounts credited to employees' bank accounts and cash found during search are to be treated as income of the assessee

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

ITA 2896/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

upheld in entirety. 58. We shall now turn to the remaining issues relating to additions under section 69A on account of cash found during search, which are the subject of both appeals. 59. We now proceed to examine the next issue arising from the addition made on account of cash ... directly reconciled with the sources explained. 63. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and considered the submissions. The total cash found during search amounted to ₹54,29,800, whereas the explained cash available from the two sources the LLP and the father aggregated to more than

PRASHANT PRAKASH NILAWAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue, being ITA

ITA 2318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

M/S SUSHILA DEVI CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH,DEHRADUN vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR (JAO- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/DDN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Section 127Section 127(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

application of\nfunds for non-charitable purposes.\n15.\nThat the cancellation of registration solely on the basis of alleged unverified\ndiaries and cash found during search, without a finding of diversion of\nincome or misuse of exemption under Sections 11 and 12, is unjustified,\nexcessive and contrary to the scheme

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)

Department was offered to tax under the head "Income from business or Profession". The assessee has failed to furnish explanation for the cash found during search by the Department. Further, the assessee is filing returns with estimated income from business. The income declared by the assessee is very nominal

PURAN MAL AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139oSection 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

excess Jewellery and Cash respectively and the addition to the tune of Rs. 5,00,136/- was confirmed on a/c of unexplained cash found during search. Further, Ld. CIT (A) also confirmed the invocation of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act on the addition ... addition of Rs. 5,00,136/- out of total addition of Rs. 20,96,136/- made by the ld AO against the cash found in search u/s 69A and charging the tax by applying provisions of section 115BBE. 2. The appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

ITA 1137/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Section 10Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

During the course of search conducted sworn\nstatement under Section 132(4) of the Act on 19.01.2019 was recorded with regard\nto unexplained cash found during search, it was stated that the cash is out of on-\nmoney received by him on sale of residential flats and commercial premises.\nAccordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI vs. SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN KALBURGI, HUBBALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for both the\nPronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page

ITA 1136/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 10Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

During the course of search conducted sworn\nstatement under section 132(4) of the Act on 19.01.2019 was recorded with regard\nto unexplained cash found during search, it was stated that the cash is out of on-\nmoney received by him on sale of residential flats and commercial premises.\nAccordingly

MOHD. ALAM,MORADABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4519/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)

153A", "250(6)", "142(1)", "131(1A)", "132(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the explanation provided by the assessee for the source of cash found during search is substantiated with evidence, and whether the addition made by the AO is justified

SAHODHAR REDDY MUDDASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 444/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C Devdas And Shri C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee. The learned CIT(A) in second round of litigation, after considering relevant details filed by the assessee in support of source for cash found during search, rejected the explanation of assessee and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cash found during search u/sec.69A of the Income ... along with relevant evidences. However, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) without considering the evidences, simply sustained the addition made towards cash found in search. Thus, he submitted that, addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. 8. Shri Waseem UR Rehman, learned Sr. AR for Revenue

Showing 1–20 of 128 · Page 1 of 7