← All Phrases

“unexplained cash credit”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 687,118 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained cash credit is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained cash credit

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

(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.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala
291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

Judgments citing unexplained cash credit

Indira Vashdev Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3417/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3417/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2012-13) Indira Vashdev Gandhi V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward 634, Raj Legacy, 2 Building बिधम 29(1)(5), Mumbai 1 Wing, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli Kautilya Bkc Bandra, West, Mumbai 400083 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ajzpg7601H Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 14.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR
Section 148Section 250Section 68

Vashdev Gandhi the bank account. However, no documentary evidence in support of various claims was filed. Accordingly, Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and made an addition Rs.1,11,15,000/- to the returned income and finalised the assessment at an income

Income Tax Officer-12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 133(6)Section 68

treat the said cause notice was thus issued proposing to treat the said amount of ₹75,50,000/ 75,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. In reply, the assessee In reply, the assessee submitted that submitted that

Manavi Goel Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Miteshykumar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

added Rs. 38,11,558.8/- being received on sale of Innovative Tech Pack shares u/s 68 of the Act, which deals with unexplained cash credit. However, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that Rs. 38,11,558.8/- has been received in cash. It was further submitted that there

Vidarbha Mining Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1265/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 703, Samarpan Complex, Near Mirador Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Hotel, New Link Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099. Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv2506M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Gaurav Kabra Respondent By : Shri. G. J. Ninawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A) For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal & Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Which Are As Follows: Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Learned Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit

For Appellant: Shri. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri. G. J. Ninawe, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the amount received on account of repayment of loan from M/s. Rangoli Plaza Private Limited as alleged Unexplained Cash Credit, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Additional Grounds of appeal ... book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act after making an addition of Rs. 5,71,14,142/- u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority challenging the order of the ld. AO in reopening the assessment

Madhur Steel Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4396/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 68

Applying the provisions of section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the sum of Rs. 86,95,500/- represented unexplained cash credit income and added the same to the income of the assessee. 7. When the aggrieved assessee went in appeal before ... upheld the addition of Rs. 86,95,500/- as the assessee has unexplained income and made unexplained cash credits in the absence of the assessee having failed to discharge its burden of proof to dispel the conclusion based on preponderance of probabilities. 8. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal

Income Tax Officer Ward-16(3), Delhi ITO vs. Mansarover Exim Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1275/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Ito, Vs Mansarover Exim Pvt.Ltd., Ward-16(3), 2, First Floor, Pocket-H-34, Delhi Plot No.35, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi-110085. Pan-Aaecm9328A Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gupta, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Shri Shourya Jain, Ca & Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

called for and finally, the assessment was completed at an income of INR 18,61,04,283/- by making additions on account of unexplained cash credits of INR 18,00,10,170/- and interest paid on such cash credit of INR 1,05,40,955/-. 3. Against this order ... Closing Balance of Unsecured Loan comes to Rs.18,00,10,170/-, which has been considered as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act by AO and added to the Returned Income of the Assessee. Apparently therefore, the entire sum of Rs. 18,00,10,170/- is not availed during

Santoshi Arora, Bemetara vs. Assessing Officer 1(3), Bhilai

ITA 312/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 312/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69A

deposits during the F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A. Y. 2016-17 amounting to Rs.17,11,000/-. The same is treated to be unexplained cash credit in absence of any documentary evidence and is an escaped assessment. 3. Analysis of information. As the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence ... absence of any documentary 7 Santoshi Arora vs. Assessing Officer-1(3) evidence, the same is treated to be unexplained cash credits and is an escaped assessment. 5. Findings In view of provisions of clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 147 of the Income

Shah Patel & Company, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2030/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshah Patel & Company, Income Tax Officer, Vs. S.No.740/53, Under Sarangpur Ward-5(2)(4), Bridge, Opp. Anand Cloth Market, Ahmedabad. Sarangpur, Ahmedabad-380002. [Pan :Aagfs5763 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S N Divatia With Shri Samir Vora, Ars Respondent By: Shri B P Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri B P Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 68

confirming addition of Rs.813000/- being Specified Bank Note (SBN) deposited by Debtors directly in various Bank Branches of Appellant’s bank account as unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject the learned ... issue pertains to whether the amount of Rs.8,13,000/- deposited in the bank account of the assessee during the demonetization period constitutes unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted that these deposits were made directly by debtors at various branches of the bank

Rajesh Shanabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1517/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

submitted that the addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of share of penny scrip Dhvanil Chemical Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 is rightly done by the Assessing Officer. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order as well as the order

Gopaal Bhagwandas Ahuja, Mumbai vs. ACIT -17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 925/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhailgopaal Bhagwandas Ahuja, 121, Soona Villa, Perrry Cross Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400005 ……………. Appellant Pan – Aabpa5620P V/S Acit, Circle- 17(1), Mumbai ……………. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

journal entry as it did not involve any credit to cash account and therefore, the alleged transaction could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 4. On the facts and in law, the conditions for making addition under Section

ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc vs. Parul Kishor Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3601/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

inclined to delete the addition of Rs.56,61,715/- (sale proceeds on sale of shares) which was made and affirmed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to the income of the Assessee. As we have deleted the substantive addition, hence the addition of Rs.1

Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi, Belagavi vs. PCIT Hubballi, Hubballi

ITA 103/PAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 103/Pan/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi C/O. Shri Laxmi Complex, Sadashiv Nagar, Belgavi-590001 Pan : Agrpk3086D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1063626985(1) Dt. 29/03/2024 Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hubali [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which Sought To Revise Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/04/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

additions were made viz; (1) value of sale consideration of ₹1,62,81,966/- not reflected in books of accounts and (2) Unexplained cash credit of ₹46,85,459/-. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 Veerendra Basavaraj Koujalagi Vs PCIT ITA Nos.103/PAN/2024 AY: 2018-19 4. Following culmination of assessment

Anil Kumar Parekh, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anil Kumar Parekh C/O. Madhu Traders, Station Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan: Akepp0240E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

erred in sustaining addition of Rs.11,00,000 on account of bogus LTCG on sale of shares by applying sec68 treating it as unexplained cash credits; while, the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon him u/s68 and revenue has not disproved the documentary evidences/ materials submitted before him; addition

Savitri Devi, Bhojpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 571/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 68

show cause notice issued u/s 144 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added a sum of ₹ 1,18,20,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹1,28,82,750/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Aggrieved with

The Anklav Mercantile Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Anand vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 685/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Preyashi Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 68Section 69Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

facts in not adjudicating addition made U/s 68 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.8,17,68,248/- as unexplained cash credit. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts not adjudicating addition made U/s 69 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.15 ... issuance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act. In absence of such proof, such loans were held to be unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. Further, interest income amounting to ₹33,60,273/- received from Bank

Nandish Madhukar Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously ITO, Ward-5(2)(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 68

assessee deposited a total sum of %1,18,30,436/- in three bank accounts. The AO held the said deposits to be unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act, mainly due to substantial increase in sales during September to November 2016 as compared to the corresponding period

Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune vs. Hemant Bagareddy Motadoo, Pune

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

ITA 1897/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

appellant assessee. Hence this issue is hereby allowed.” 9. So far as the addition of Rs.2,80,33,688/- on account of unexplained cash credit is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 4 “The appellant assessee have provided relevant evidences in support of its contentions

Dilip Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 819/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dilip Roy,……………….……………...….………Appellant Sipaipara, Shahudangi Hat, Jalpaiguri-735135, West Bengal [Pan:Ainpr9363C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri, Central Revenue Building, Race Course Road, Jalpaiguri-735101, W.B.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

land advance and hence the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- remained unexplained and accordingly the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer and added to the total income of the asseessee. Thus, the ld. Assessing

Dilip Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

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

ITA 818/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dilip Roy,……………….……………...….………Appellant Sipaipara, Shahudangi Hat, Jalpaiguri-735135, West Bengal [Pan:Ainpr9363C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri, Central Revenue Building, Race Course Road, Jalpaiguri-735101, W.B.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

land advance and hence the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- remained unexplained and accordingly the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer and added to the total income of the asseessee. Thus, the ld. Assessing

Sangeeta Kalpesh Chawalla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 458/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Durga Prasad More (82) ITR 540 (SC) ultimately made the addition of Rs.28,27,302/- on account of sale consideration being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the same in the income of the Assessee. Further, the AO also made the addition ... deposited in respondent's bank account. In view thereof, the CIT[A] found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were