← 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

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

treating share application money as bogus and making addition of Rs. 13,94,00,000/- u/s 68 as 'unexplained cash credit' introduced in the books of accounts. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who had also decided the Appeal in favour of Revenue vide ... received by the assessee during the year was added to the total income of the assessee as 'unexplained cash credit' introduced in the books of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

treating share application money as bogus and making addition of Rs. 13,94,00,000/- u/s 68 as 'unexplained cash credit' introduced in the books of accounts. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who had also decided the Appeal in favour of Revenue vide ... received by the assessee during the year was added to the total income of the assessee as 'unexplained cash credit' introduced in the books of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but failed

Deergold Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-6(1), Kol, Kolkata

ITA 499/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Relating To The Identity & Financial Worthiness Of The Share Applicants, The Justification Of The Premium Received By The Assessee & Also Relating To The Genuineness Of The Transaction In Question. The Assessee Will Duly Comply With The Notices Issued By The Cit(A) & Will Also Furnish The Required Documents & Evidences Before The Cit(A) Or Before The Assessing Officer, As The Case May Be.

Section 68

Tibrewal for compliances I.T.A. No.499/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deergold Vincom Pvt Ltd capital with premium aggregating to Rs.3,16,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds

My Own Eco-Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-7(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 504/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, My Own Eco-Energy Vs. Acit, 7(2)(2) Private Limited, 623, 6Th Floor, Aayakar A1, Office No. 444, 4 Th Bhavan, M.K. Road, Floor, Shah & Nahar Maharashtra - 400020 Industrial Estate, Sitaram Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel West, Maharashtra 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcm8412E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 68

erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 24,63,29,761/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of AO in invoking ... Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 7(2)(2) Rs.24,63,29,761/- was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A) there was 40 days

Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 314/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jay Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessing Officer disre- garded the submissions made by the assessee and made an addition of ₹ 6,39,10,000/- from 25 parties as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. As a consequential effect of treating these loans as unex- plained cash credit, ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed interest

Rajesh Govind Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO-42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 269/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 68

show cause notice issued for best judgement 3 Rajesh Govind Rao assessment u/s. 144 of the Act in respect of aforesaid unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who passed ex–parte order and dismissed

Pramod Kumar Singh, Kalyan, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Thane, Maharashtra

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

ITA 4759/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Pramod Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito Ward 17(2)(1) A Wing Room No. 2, Mumbai Shalaka Chsl, Manpada Road, Gandhinagar, Dombivali East, Kalyan – 421204 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Atzps5807M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rahul BombaleFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 250Section 68Section 69

shown by the assessee as his receipt was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. The assessing officer has also noticed that as per information available on AIMS Module of ITBA the assessee has purchased immovable property valued at Rs.4

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

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 ... proposed in the appeal arises. 31. Apart from the above, the Revenue has also relied upon several judgments rendered in the context of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by the judicial forums. Having perused those judgments, it is noted that, the question as to whether the assessee

Jullundue Motor Agency Delhi Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3625/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

section 143(3) of the Act which is based on incorrect statistical findings, by treating the entire cash deposited during demonetization period as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act & sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,31,06,307 (audited financials reflect cash deposit

Indu Mahendra Shah (L/H of Late Shri Mahendra G. Shah), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 856/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

bogus and treating it as accommodation entry and has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,46,32,198/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding

Pratik Jatin Desai, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal is thus allowed in above terms

ITA 673/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2012-2013
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 68

assessee u/s.131 was also recorded. Further show cause notice was issued to assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, an unexplained cash credit of Rs. 94,34,800/-— was added u/s. 68 of the Act in the total income of the assessee, assessing total income of the assessee

Neelam Sachin Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 768/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2

Ultimately the Assessing Officer framed the assessment by making addition in the hands of the assessee of the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 13,96,398/- as the credit entries appearing in the Axis Bank on being remained unexplained. 4. Aggrieved , assessee filed first appeal before ... assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. The issue involved in this appeal is addition of Rs. 13,96,398/- as unexplained cash credits. Despite being given many opportunities, appellant did not respond during appellate proceedings nor furnished any written submission or any evidence in support

Neelam Sachin Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 767/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2

Ultimately the Assessing Officer framed the assessment by making addition in the hands of the assessee of the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 13,96,398/- as the credit entries appearing in the Axis Bank on being remained unexplained. 4. Aggrieved , assessee filed first appeal before ... assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. The issue involved in this appeal is addition of Rs. 13,96,398/- as unexplained cash credits. Despite being given many opportunities, appellant did not respond during appellate proceedings nor furnished any written submission or any evidence in support

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Mahesh Somabhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1854/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

transfer in and out of shares, Assessing Officer was not justified in bringing to tax capital gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. 7.3 Further in the case of Maheshchandra G. Vakil [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where assessee proved genuineness ... also abstract of transactions furnished by stock exchange, Assessing Officer was not justified in treating capital gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit.” 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Nileshkumar Dashratbhai Patel (in ITA No. 55/Ahd/2020 dated

Sri Sujit Singhania, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(4), Kolkata.

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

ITA 935/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

genuine transaction. However, the entire LTCG of Rs. 58,69,098/- as claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where

Subramaniam Ramasamy, Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

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

ITA 1293/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1293/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Subramaniam Ramasamy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop: Asia Textiles, Income Tax, 119-A, Rasagoundenpalayam, Circle -1, Manickapuram, Tirupur. Palladam, Tirupur 641 664. [Pan: Asips 0010J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 68

which is not permissible’. 4. The AO in its assessment order dated 10.11.2016 made additions on two accounts. Firstly, addition on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs.18,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act and secondly, addition on account of payments made in cash of Rs.28 ... Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the ground of assessee on the issue of unexplained cash credit of Rs.18,00,000/- u/s 68, however, given partial relief of Rs.3,20,000/- out of total disallowance of Rs.28,99,539/- and upheld the balance addition of Rs.25,79,539/-. Hence, assessee is further

Mayakonda Ghani Mohammed Mujahid, Davanagere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Davanagere

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

ITA 852/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 68Section 69A

this appeal is cash deposits in old SBNs during the demonetisation period from 13.11.2016 to 8.12.2016 of Rs.13,73,500 treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. Page 2 of 4 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an auditor and tax consultant

Aastha Minimet India Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 731/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 14ASection 250

which the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) had restricted the sundry creditors to 50% of the actuals and treated the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit and also treated the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained cash credit. The AO also invoked Sec 14A r/w. rule ... that the same is a best judgement assessment in which additions were made in respect of the sundry creditors, unsecured loans treated as unexplained cash credits, deposits made during the demonetization period treated as unexplained cash credits and disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8Dsince both the assessment order

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Habitat Housing Finance Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,98,90,000/-u/s. 68 on account of unexplained cash credits?” 3. Briefly stated, the assessee filed return of income (ROI) declaring income at Rs.3,91,610/- for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in question. The return filed by the assessee was subjected ... accordingly invoked the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and treated the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,98,90,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3 I.T.A. No.3840/Del/2015 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) took note

Subhojit Paul., Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir-23(1), Hooghly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1204/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Subhojit Paul,……………………………….………Appellant Begampur New Railway Station, Chanditala, Begampur, Hooghly-712306, West Bengal [Pan:Awqpp6333B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…Respondent Circle-23(1), Hooghly, Khadina More, Station Road, Chinsurah-712101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri S.K. Kamaluddin, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

addition of Rs.40,36,676/- out of the total addition of Rs.99,32,750/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit in the accounts of the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income ... under section 143(3) on 13th November, 2019. The ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.99,32,750/- on account of unexplained cash credits deposited in the various Bank accounts of the assessee. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before