← 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

Sandeep Mohanraj Singhi, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 769/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

exempted Long Term Capital Gain. He, therefore, justified action of the AO in treating the entire sale consideration of Rs.538.40 Crores as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee and the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. Submission of the Assessee 8. Per contra, Shri ... correctly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly deleted the addition of Rs.538.40 crore on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of sale of shares. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is, therefore, upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.769/Ahd/2025

The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. Farmvile Enterprise, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 717/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 147

assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 14,49,085/- of the Act treating the said amount as unexplained cash credit. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

Assessing Officer towards cash deposit of Rs.5,90,35,000/- and sustained balance cash deposit of Rs.3,78,35,000/- as unexplained cash credits. In our considered view, the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A) is not controverted by the assessee with any evidence and therefore

Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Bapodara, Porbandar vs. Ward - 2(4), Porbandar

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

ITA 325/RJT/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Rajashibhai Bhimabhai Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bapodara Main Chowk Ward – 2(4), Porbandar – Bapodar, Ranavav Porbandar, 360570 Gujarat - 360570 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arspb7433P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 119Section 144

impugned cash deposits as unsatisfactory solely with the aim of fastening exorbitant tax liability on the Assessee- Company under the garb of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Such recourse primarily hedged on surmises, conjecture, assumptions, presumptions and whims of the Revenue Authorities is clearly unwarranted

Suhel Inayatulla Punekar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

Truck. The ld.CIT(A) though confirmed the addition but invoked section 68 of the Act alleging that the sum of Rs.10.00 lakh is unexplained cash credit. 5. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing ... proof for purchase of the Truck which has been sold during the year. Ld.CIT(A) went step ahead treating the alleged credit as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. I have also perused the documents Suhel Inayatulla Punekar placed in the paper book which have also been furnished before

Tejash Ramesh Shah, HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 5813/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SRDR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

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

Mintu Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 28, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 8/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.08/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Das………………………...………........………………....Appellant C/O S. N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Kolkata –1. [Pan: Adppd3034M] Vs. Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Validity Of The Assessment Proceedings Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Consequent To That, An Addition Of Rs.69,42,916/- U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act & Further Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.4,86,004/- U/S 69 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.16,50,920/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

held that LTCG was not genuine and added the entire sale proceeds of Rs.69,42,916/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act subjected to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act along with an amount of Rs.4,86,004/- on account

Suresh B. Agrawal HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 74/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

relate to holding the LTCG as bogus and bringing to tax the sale consideration of Rs. 95,01,732/- u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the appellant had earned Long- Term capital gain of Rs. 92,01,732/- on sale ... while confirming the addition of Rs. 95,01,732/- made by Ld A.O. in the assessment order u/s 143(3) on ground of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on sale of shares. The Addition is confirmed on conjecture and surmises and on the basis of law and fact

Shyam Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 37/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 234ASection 68

learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,14,25,840/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the disallowance ... assessee in the form of unsecured loan. The assessment was completed thereby treating the unsecured loan of Rs.1,14,25,840/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and further the interest expense incurred on loan to the tune of Rs.8,96,398/- was disallowed

ACIT-CC-2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Kisan Party of India, Bihar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 152/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22) Vs. Kisan Party Of India Assistant Commissioner Of 38, Nageshwar Sthan, Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Janakpur Road, Pupri, Ahmedabad Sitamarhi, Bihar-843320 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadak3729J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None (Written Submission) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.5,35,72,646/- made on account of unexplained cash credits in the hands of assessee u/s. 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act?". 2). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... made an addition of Rs 5,35,72,646/-on protective basis in the hands of the appellant as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r/w 115BBE. Corresponding substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Bhadiadra. This corresponds to the amount found deposited in the State Bank of India

Sms Concast Ag, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), (International Texation), New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid

ITA 3071/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act made addition of Rs.1,41,36,733/- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,36,733/- by accepting

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Devraj Harshadray Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 93/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

taken by the assessee from Reshmaben Vikrambhai Patel. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amounts as income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 10. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assesse

Darshil Chandravadan Shah, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1355/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.53,47,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits in the appellant's bank account u/s. 69A of the Act. The impugned addition of Rs.53,47,000/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed

Devraj Harshadrai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

taken by the assessee from Reshmaben Vikrambhai Patel. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amounts as income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 10. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assesse

Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel(Through L/H Devraj H.Patel), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1092/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

taken by the assessee from Reshmaben Vikrambhai Patel. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amounts as income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 10. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assesse

Mr. Mohd.Imroseiqbal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(2), Delhi

In the result, order of the CIT(A) on the issues raised before us by the Revenue in its appeal are upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3513/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3513/ िद"ी /2019 (िन.व. 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), R. No. 385A, 3Rd Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Bharatpuria Finance & Investment Ltd., C-4/164, Keshav Puram, Delhi 110035 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaacb-3662-N Assessee By : Shri Ravi Saini, Managing Director Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 23.01.2019, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Non Banking Finance Company. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Nil Income & Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.4,02,609/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saini, Managing DirectorFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

India Rs.2,32,19,000/-; iii. notional interest @12% on the loans and advances given to the different parties Rs.48,70,326/-; iv. unexplained cash credit Rs.25,00,000/-; & v. disallowance of depreciation Rs.2,74,748/-.” 3. Aggrieved by the additions made in assessment order dated 21.03.2016 passed ... Revenue is in appeal assailing deleting of additions on account of; income from undisclosed sources Rs.4,50,00,000/-, unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act Rs.25,00,000/- and allowing depreciation on fixed assets (computer) Rs.14,941/-. 4. Shri Ashish Tripathi, representing the department vehemently supporting findings

Jitender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3317/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2017-18] Assistant Commissioner Of Viney Gems & Jewellery Private Income Tax, Circle-25(1), Limited, Room No.192A, 1St Floor, Vs B-172, Lok Vihar, Pitampura, C.R. Building, Delhi-110002 Delhi-110034 Pan-Aafca9381G Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca Revenue By Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2025

Section 206Section 68

cash sales of jewellery out of Rs.3,02,00,000/- deposited in the bank account between 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also given other reasons for treating the said addition, which has been discussed earlier ... credit of Rs.2,95,78,312/- on account of cash sales of jewellery in its books of accounts and added it as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. As discussed above, in the given facts of the case, the onus

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4466/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 14ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vgu-Technology Business Incubator Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur, Jaipur

28. In view of the above finding, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) confirming the impugned assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is hereby set aside

ITA 799/JPR/2024[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

unexplained credits of the balance sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- (Rs. 8,20,000 Rs. 2,90,000) is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and liable to be added to the income of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16. Further, the undersigned records his satisfaction that ... being run by her husband and since the ledger did not indicate any financial implication, said entries could not be said to be unexplained cash credit, attracting the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. 25. Having record to the material placed on record by the assessee- appellant, before

Kannan, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Virudhunagar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2569/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2569/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Kannan Ito बनाम # 22/78, Edumbaneeravi Street, Ward-1 / Vs. Virudhunagar-626 001. Virudhunagar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Borpk-4251-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

period of delay, we condone the delay. 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is against confirmation of addition of Rs.55.06 Lacs as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Upon perusal of para-6.1 of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to attend first