← 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

Income Tax Officer-42(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Ketan Gunvantrai Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, instant appeal and CO filed respectively by the Revenue Department and the Assessee, stands dismissed

ITA 3870/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish Shetty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

report, 3 CO No.135/M/2024 Shri Ketan Gunvantrai Mehta analysis of cash trial etc. ultimately treated the amount of Rs.1,93,56,657/- as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the total income of the Assessee u/s 68 of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid

Premier Restaurant Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

made addition of Rs. 38,23,657/- u/s 68 alleging cash deposit made during the period of demonetization to be unexplained cash credit. For making the above addition, Ld. AO made comparison of deviation of cash sales during the year in question and immediately preceding ... reason and without having any valid evidence. Further, Ld. AO wrongly made addition of Rs. 38,23,657/-, alleging cash deposit to be unexplained cash credits even when the same are from explained sources as clearly detailed above. Page 10 of 17 ITA No.-432/Del/2024 Premier Restaurant Private

Sanjeev Kumar Garg, Dadri vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3135/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Kumar Garg, Vs. Ito, Nyadar Ganj, Dadri G.B. Ward-3(3), Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Uttar Pradesh Pan :Afwpg3729F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 147Section 68

Departmental Representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower appellate authorities herein have rightly made the impugned section 68 unexplained cash credits addition representing the taxpayer’s cash deposits in saving bank accounts. 4. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR’s case accordingly is that this tribunal

Poonam Sachdeva, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 67 (2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2783/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2783/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2017-18) Poonam Sachdeva, K-83, B.K. Dutt Colony, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Akvps-3355-H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal , Sr. DR
Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18. 2. The solitary issue in appeal by the assessee is against addition of Rs.10,77,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’), during the period of demonetization. 2 3. Facts

Amol Prataprao Chavan, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1679/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1679/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amol Prataprao Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Patil Chowk, Daphalapur Jath, S Ward-2, Sangli. Sangli – 416402. Pan: Amypc0887B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Manoj Tripathi – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2017-18 Dated 28.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) Ground No.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Ao Erred In Making Addition To Total Income Of Rs.16,54,000/- U/S 68 Without Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 1.1) The Assessee Amol Prataprao Chavan Is An Individual Was Engaged In The Business As " Business Correspondent Agent " He Was Appointed To Facilitate Bank Customers On Behalf Of Bank. He Was Authorised To Accept Cash On Behalf Of Bank As Well As He Was Also Authorised To Give Withdrawals To Customers Of Bank. For Doing This Activity Bank Has Allotted Him Separate Bank Account. His Bank Account Having Account No. 60255628482 Of Bank Of Maharashtra Was That Special Purpose Bank Account . Learned Ao Considered Entire Deposit Of Rs. 16,54,000/- In That Bank Account As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 .

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68

Maharashtra was that special purpose bank account . learned AO considered entire deposit of Rs. 16,54,000/- in that bank account as unexplained cash credit U/s 68 . Prayer The Assessee prays that learned AO made an addition on vauge assumption without considering the nature of business of the assessee, hence ... Maharashtra 2 was that special purpose bank account . learned AO considered entire deposit of Rs. 16,54,000/- in that bank account as unexplained cash credit U/s 68 . Prayer The Assessee prays that learned AO made an addition on vauge assumption without considering the nature of business of the assessee

DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata vs. Arya Realty Developers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1918/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1918/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-2(2), Kolkata…….…..………………........………………....Appellant Vs. Arya Realty Developers Pvt. Ltd.…............................…..…..... Respondent P-95, Lake View Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aaica1390C] Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Revenue Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid Reasons. After Hearing The Submissions, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Declared Business Income Of Rs.3,81,39,040/-. The Assessing Officer Treated This Income As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Accordingly Re- Classified It Under The Head ‘Income From Other Sources’ By Applying Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

facts of the case are that the assessee declared business income of Rs.3,81,39,040/-. The Assessing Officer treated this income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and accordingly re- classified it under the head ‘income from other sources’ by applying section 115BBE

M/S. Aashish Auto Components Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1767/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Aashish Auto Components Income Tax Officer, Manufacturers Pvt Ltd., V. Corporate Ward -1(2), No.86, Govindappa Naicken Street, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, George Town, Chennai – 600 001 Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca-5586-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

explanation of the appellant is not in order and not acceptable. The remaining sum of Rs.70,55,500 is to be treated as unexplained cash credit.” :-8-: ITA. No: 1767/Chny/2024 Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), the Assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. The ld.AR

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuddalore vs. Cholaji Kanniyalal, Kamaraj Street, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1674/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 68

cash deposit, passed an order u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2019 treating total cash sales made on 08.11.2016 amounting to Rs.97,63,365/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, assessing a total income at Rs.1,65,58,055/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before ... taxes were paid and explained the proper source of cash deposited. Inspite of that the Assessing officer has treated the same again as unexplained cash credit thereby taxing the same item twice leading to double taxation, therefore this is against the principle of natural justice. :-8-: ITA. No: 1674/Chny/2024

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

provisions of section 115BBE can be subjected to only when section 68 is attracted. In the case of the appellant there is no unexplained cash credit in the form of unsecured loan, share capital or share application money which has been recorded in the books and source of which remained ... Products Exporting Co. v CIT [2000] 241 ITR 497 (Ker). The legislature had laid down that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged u/s 68 of the Act. Our view is fortified by the ratio laid down in Hon'ble Apex Court

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

that assessee has benefitted from engaging in reversal trades in illiquid stock options resulting in non genuine losses and proposed to add in unexplained cash credits. Finally, while concluding assessment order, the AO at page 17 of his order, has first observed that assessee has been indulged in generating ... payment of STT. The Bench noted that even otherwise also the AO had issued show cause notice for making addition on account of unexplained cash credits (APB 138) and while passing the assessment order addition has been made u/s 69A on account of unexplained money. Reliance is placed

Mr. Pratapa Gouda Patil, Maski vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raichur

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

ITA 2013/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

could not be able to substantiate the genuineness of agricultural income before the AO. Accordingly, the AO taxed the entire agricultural income as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. We observe that before ld. CIT(A), no one appeared from the side of assessee, even after the issuance

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Manlife Trading Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5355/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR DR
Section 68Section 69C

observing that the assessee has submitted sufficient details ignoring the fact that the addition was made as Unexplained Cash Credit for an accommodation entry in the form of Share Premium obtained by the assessee from an entity having no creditworthiness and through a non-genuine transaction which was clearly established

Paresh R Pujara HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-27(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4231/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Paresh R Pujara Huf Ito Ward 27(2)(5) Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, A-3/10, Chitaranjan Nagar, Rajawadi Ghatkopar (E), Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aajhp 4668 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta : Shri Tushar Mohite Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 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) (‘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) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals) Has, Erred In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed In Gross Violation Of The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal. 3. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Cit (Appeals), Mumbai Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessment proceedings and determined the total income at Rs. 12,37,080/- after making an addition u/s. 69A of the Act being unexplained cash credit. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order. 5. The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated

Manjul Chandrakant Garadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3977/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned assessing officer has erred in applying provisions of section 68 and treating unexplained cash credit the cash deposits of demonetised notes into his saving bank account ot the extent of Rs.9,14,000/- made in the month of December ... Therefore, the Assessing Officer concluded that the deposits made from 23/12/2016 to 30/12/2016 aggregating to INR.9,14,000/- were in the nature of unexplained cash credits. Thus, invoking the provisions treating under Section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made an addition of the said amount and held that

Lovkesh Bajaj, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-28(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3170/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Samyak Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

course of hearing that the assessee’s aggrieved against the CIT(A)’s action herein upholding the assessment findings making section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.14.86 lacs to the extent of Rs.2.35 lacs only. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration. Both the learned representatives respective stands ... precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer had admittedly treated cash 2 Lovkesh Bajaj deposits in three Indian bank account as assessee’s unexplained cash credit whereas it emerged in the lower appellate proceedings that only one of the said account(s) was in his name which involved Rs.2.35 lacs

Chintamani Commodities, Jhilmil Industrial Area vs. PCIT, Delhi

ITA 2610/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhchintamani Commodities Vs. Pcit, 20 A-20, Jhilmil Industrial Room No. 106, Vikas Area, Shahdhra Bhawan, I P Estate Delhi - 110095 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aagfc9374B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 263Section 68Section 69C

dated 22.03.2022 to this effect that the reassessment order under Section 147 is beyond jurisdiction and there was no case of unexplained cash credit in respect of purchases made by the assessee from the above two parties mentioned hereinabove and the provision of Section 68 are inapplicable to the said

Ajay Jethanand Notwani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 412/AHD/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 68

with Bank of BArods, Sardarnagar Branch, Ahmedabad as against actual amount of cash deposit of Rs. 18,77,970/- in Bank as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68. Cash deposited is of Rs. 18,77,970/- and not Rs. 1,65,47,220/- as alleged

Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under : “7. Further on perusal, the assessee was seen to have shown an opening balance in loans/ liability ... identity and creditworthiness of the persons. Therefore, the undersigned is compelled to treat the same as bogus and adds the same amount as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle 1, Kolhapur vs. Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Maharashtra

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under : “7. Further on perusal, the assessee was seen to have shown an opening balance in loans/ liability ... identity and creditworthiness of the persons. Therefore, the undersigned is compelled to treat the same as bogus and adds the same amount as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune

M/S Titivate Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-91(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 3,37,00,000/- as made by the AO in respect of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2 I.T.A. No.578/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Titivate Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee ... source of capital as th4e summons issued u/s 131 of the Act were not complied. Thereafter, the AO treated the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added the same to the income of the assessee besides adding an interest of Rs. 6,330/-. 4. In the appellate proceedings