“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

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 404/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 403, 404 & 405/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years:2015-16, 2016-17 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.78,88,396/ - u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit by treating the sale of Rs.78,88,396/- as bogus. The addition made by the A.O. and sustained by CIT(A) NFAC is unjustified, unwarranted

Pratik Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

ITA 403/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Dimple Warlyani, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Anshuka Taneja, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69Section 69A

order, the addition has been made by the A.O invoking Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e. unexplained cash credit. However, trail of examination of facts on record demonstrates that the assessee was asked to explain the details of cash deposits and nature ... scenario, applying the 4 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur provision of Section 68 of the Act which talks of unexplained cash credit itself goes to the root of the matter vitiates the assessment order as well as impugned order i.e. order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals

Amul Feed Private Limited, Patna vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Patna

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

ITA 184/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.184/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amul Feed Pvt. Ltd……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Shakti Punj, Ashoka Vihar Biscomaum Colony, Patna, Bihar - 800007. [Pan: Aafca0769E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singhal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Nfac ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Passed An Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Making An Addition Of Rs.1,37,39,437 As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Act, Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Further Made Another Addition Of Rs.1,00,88,000 As Unexplained Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act, Again Invoking Section 115Bbe & Taxing The Same At The Rate Of 60%. 3. Aggrieved By The Said Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Ex Parte For Non-Compliance With The Notices Issued By The

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") making an addition of Rs.1,37,39,437 as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Act, invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer further made another addition of Rs.1

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

entries to the assessee. 3. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts and law. in deleting the addition on account of unexplained cash credits under section 68 the Income Tax Act, 1961amounting to R- 2,20,32,738/-. 4. That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred on facts

Sri Shivakumara Swamy Credit Coop Society Limited, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davanagere

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

ITA 474/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in adding a sum of Rs.17,16,500/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act even though the source of such cash was explained with supporting evidences. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income ... cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. It is also on record that the assessee was having only one source of income from trading

Arizona Global Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 668/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Arizona Global Services Private Ito, Limited, Vs. Ward 3(1), 211, 2Nd Floor, Hemkunt Chambers, New Delhi. 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan No.Aadcd7117M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

total income at Rs.30,90,00,000/-. The AO while completing the assessment added an amount of Rs.30,90,00,000/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 in respect of unsecured loans from 7 parties as referred to at page 2 of the assessment order. 5. The Ld. PCIT ... interest of the Revenue for the following: a) The AO while completing the assessment considered only an amount of Rs.1 crore as unexplained cash credit in respect of loan received from M/s Starpoint Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. as against Rs. 2 crores during the relevant assessment year. b) Assessing Officer inadvertently

Basant Aerospace Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 2292/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Assessee is challenging the confirmation of addition of Rs. 50 lakhs on account of unsecured loan received from Sridhar Agencies Private Limited as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 13. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. During the year under ... said assessment, unsecured loan of Rs 50 lakhs received by the Assessee Company was added as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Assessee Company had taken loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from Sridhar Agencies Private Limited during the year. The ITA Nos. 520 & 2292/Del/2023 M/s. Basant

Basant Aerospace Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 520/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 214/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 214/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dcit United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 4(1)(1), 605, Samedh Complex, Nr. Ahmedabad Associated Petrol Pump, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006 [Pan : Aabcu 0357 N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा")रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vihar Soni, Ar +,थ. की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Appellate Order Dated 07.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”), Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Act” In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Private Limited Company, Filed Its Original Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 01.10.2018, Declaring Rs. Nil Income & Claimed Current Year Loss Of Rs.6,36,309/-. The Assessee Also Filed A Revised Return Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.19,34,006/-. The Returns Were Processed Under Regular Assessment Under Section 143(3) & The Order Was Passed On 08.03.2021, Accepting The Returned Loss. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Re-Opened On Account Of Accommodation Entry Of Rs.1.5 Crores Received From Dishman Group. Hence, A Show Cause Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued To The 2 Dcit Vs. United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

satisficed with the reply filed by the assessee. He accordingly proceeded with re-assessment and made addition of Rs.1.5 crores as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before ... made by AO on account of accommodation entry from M/s. United Polyfab Gujarat Ltd (part of Dishman Group) treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has availed accommodation entry of Rs. 1.50 Crores from Dishman Group emerged from

Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1060/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1060/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani The Acit बनाम/ Panchmukhi Mahadev Pole Circle-3(1) V/S. Opp. Jubilee Baug Vadodara – 390 007 Raopura Vadodara – 390 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavpt 5712 B (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) ("( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28/03/2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. Vasudev Hargundas Tejwani Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 68

NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by AO of Rs. 14, 42, 000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 rws 115BBE of the Act. 2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming huge addition made by AO not appreciating

Vijay Motilal Bhansali, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1465/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

file any submissions in support of its grounds of appeal against the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16 towards unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenditure. We further observe that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal merely on account of non-prosecution

Brillant Vincom LLP (Successor of Brillant Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 282/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA श्री प्रदीप कुमार चौबे, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सटस्य के समक्ष [BeforeShri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 263Section 68

added to the total income of the assessee. Further an amount of Rs. 4,08,75,800/- has also been treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal

Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2529/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

For Appellant: Sri Gokul, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 154Section 250

documentary evidence to substantiate the sources for cash deposit, a sum of Rs. 92,53,780/- was brought to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act and thereby the AO concluded the assessment proceedings ex-parte under section 144 of the Act. 7.1 Thereafter, the assessee filed

Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 2218/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia Dcit – Cc-3, Thane 60/100, New Mavji Compound Behind Vs Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Ratan, Talkies Narpoli Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302. Thane West, [Pan No. Afhpd2871E] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 37Section 68

dated 27.03.2022 on account of unsecured loan received by the appellant from M/s Frank Mercantile Private Limited which was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE, though the appellant had duly discharged its onus by submitting all the relevant documentary evidences to prove identity and creditworthiness ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 28,59,858/- u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained cash credit in respect of unsecured loan in the absence of any incriminating material unearthed during course of search carried out on the appellant and making addition solely

Krishna Fashion World, Chembur, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3273/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बिाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

which has been duly paid and deposited to the government's bank account. Ground no 8: Addition of rs.1,04,85,943/-as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in law and on facts, in adding ... have been separately assessed, once book result was negated and profit estimated. Ground No 9: Addition Of Rs.8,48,00,000/-As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 3270 to 3273 Ay 2010-11 to 2013-14 M/s. Krishna Fashion world

Krishna Fashion World, Chembur, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3272/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Ms. Krishna Fashion World, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3271/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3270 To 3273/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14) M/S. Krishna Fashion V/S. Income Tax Officer World बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 803/804, T-6, Godrej 22(2)(1), Room No. 312, Prime Colony, Sahakar Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Nagar No.2, Shell Colony, 400012 Chembur, Mumbai 400071 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfk2799R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By: None राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr A/W Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- These Four Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi 24.05.20254 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In These Appeals.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

which has been duly paid and deposited to the government's bank account. Ground no 8: Addition of rs.1,04,85,943/-as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. (a) In the facts and circumstances of the case, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in law and on facts, in adding ... have been separately assessed, once book result was negated and profit estimated. Ground No 9: Addition Of Rs.8,48,00,000/-As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Page 4 ITA Nos.3270 to 3273 Ay 2010-11 to 2013-14 M/s. Krishna Fashion world (a) In the facts and circumstances

Ms. Krishna Fashion World, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 3270/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR a/w

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Resham Kaur Angar, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 66(5), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 68

joint bank account and treating it as duly explained. That being the clinching case, the tribunal hereby sees no merit in the impugned unexplained cash credits addition made in the assessee’s hands since already explained in case of her father. The same is directed to be deleted. 5. This