← 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

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

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

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

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. 30. Apart from the above, the Revenue has also relied upon several judgments rendered in the context of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of 36 A.Y. 2013-14 Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia the Act by the judicial forums. Having perused those judgments, it is noted that

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 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 ... proposed in the appeal arises. 32. 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

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 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 ... Sheetal Rupesh Savla 30. 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 had satisfied

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 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 ... 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

Pradipkumar Harakchand Doshi, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2229/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepradipkumar Harakchand Doshi V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) 94/100, 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Grant Road 2Nd Pathan Street Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aahpd4722B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 250

Capital Gain should not be treated as non-genuine and sale consideration received on the penny stock should not be taxed as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. In response, assessee filed his submission on 31.08.2017 and submitted that the transaction of Long Term Capital Gain ... case of the assessee herein by treating the sale proceeds of shares of Rs 5,32,06,356/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and an estimated commission expenditure of Rs 31,92,381/- (53206356 *6%) as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act at the rate

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1653/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(2)

Capital Gain should not be treated as non-genuine and sale consideration received on the penny stock should not be taxed as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 34. In response, Assessee did not attended for recording of his statement on oath. Assessing Officer observed that ... amount of Rs.1,17,33,011/- received as sales proceeds on sale of shares in lieu of cash is added back as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and taxed U/s 115BBE of the Act 30. Accordingly, pure and simple conclusion is to be drawn that

Uppa Bajaj, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2707/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Uppa Bajaj, Vs Ito, B 7/218, Sector-5, Rohini, Ward-35(2), Delhi-110085. Civic Centre, Pan-Aiapb0248F Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sourabh Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2024

Section 144Section 68

making addition on account of income from business and profession of INR 14,71,313/-and unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, amounting to INR 3,85,09,900/-. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, also sustained

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1645/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1644/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1645/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., 30/27, 1St Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Circle-1, Noida-201301 New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2264Q Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2024 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Dated 23.03.2023. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Similar, They Were Heard Together & Being Adjudicated By A Common Order. In 1644/Del/2023, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue:

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,10,40,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loans, even though the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation from lenders, their ledger accounts or any necessary

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1644/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1644/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1645/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., 30/27, 1St Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Circle-1, Noida-201301 New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2264Q Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2024 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Dated 23.03.2023. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Similar, They Were Heard Together & Being Adjudicated By A Common Order. In 1644/Del/2023, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue:

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

Kanpur has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,10,40,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act with regard to unsecured loans, even though the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation from lenders, their ledger accounts or any necessary

Swarnandhra Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Srikakulam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 279/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Swarnandhra Jute Mills Pvt Ltd, Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Survey No.40, Varisam Village, Income Tax, Ranastalam Mandal, Circle-4(1), Pydhibheemavaram, Visakhapatnam. Srikakulam-532409, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Aaics 7788 J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 14/03/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

Bluechip Financial Consultants Private Limited and M/s. Mascon Fin Private Limited. Accordingly, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 40 lakhs as unexplained cash credits U/s. 68 of the Act by determining the total income at Rs. 40,00,000/- and passed the order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Sharda Ferro Works(P)Ltd, Howrah vs. DCIT, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Ld in adding back Rs.2,05,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under see 68 when the when the appellant filed the PAN of share applicants and are registered with ROC having CIN, bank statement and source declaration ... that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified confirming order of the Ld AO treating the sum of Rs.2,05,50,000/-as unexplained cash credit on the ground that the assessee failed to discharge its onus and relying on the judgements which has to relevancy to the facts

Orris Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 720/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.720/Kol/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Orris Trade Link Pvt Ltd…..….…………............…...……………....Appellant Shop No.B-7-In,C-197, Greater Kailash, Part-I, South Delhi-110048. [Pan: Aaaco8097N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolkata……...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Umakant Dhrupati, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Notices Issued On Different Dates & Even Efforts Were Also Made To Inform The Assessee Telephonically. Under The Circumstances, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Present Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. The Ld. Dr Has Brought Our Attention To The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) To Submit That In This Case, There Were Two Issues Involved Before

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

first issue was relating to the addition of Rs.2,56,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and the second issue was relating to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The ld. DR has brought our attention ... submit that in fact the ld. CIT(A), after discussion of the matter, has decided the issue relating to unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,56,00,000/- in favour of the assessee, however, in the closing para/lines, the ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the addition is directed to be added

M/S. B.L. Tak and Sons (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2622/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Unno Industries Ltd, M/s Tuni Textile Mill Ltd, M/s Nikki Global Ltd, M/s KDJ Holiday Ltd. and M/s Asianlak Capital Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on the facts by adding unexplained towards

Annamalaiyar Sankari Cement Private Limited, Vellore vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Vellore, Vellore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1401/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1401/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Annamalaiyar Sankari Cement Acit बनाम Private Limited Circle-1 21/30, Auxilium College Road, Vellore. / Vs. Gandhi Nagar, Vellore-632 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca-9253-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 14-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

void and deemed to be never have been made. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.11.27 Lacs was brought to tax in regular assessment as unexplained cash credit in the books of account u/s. 68 which would be taxable at special rates u/s.115BBE. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same but directed

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Awas Developers, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 368/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 184Section 40ASection 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs 55,41,000/-being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought ... 31/03/2010 under the head banking amount. Accordingly, the AO opined that such booking amount shown in the balance sheet represents the unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The AO in holding so also drew the strength from the fact as narrated below. I. There was an investment

Vibrant Shelter Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 285/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

accordingly reject the assessee’s instant first and foremost substantive grievance. 5. Next comes the latter issue of correctness of sec.68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.84,05,721/- representing assessee’s cash deposits in it’s bank account statement which is enclosed as ‘Annexure-A’ with the assessment order

Gangadharan Renganathan Komal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 98/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

bank account. Hence, the explanation given by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and he considered Rs.6,72,000/- as unexplained cash credits and added it to the income from other sources under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment

Srinivasen Sv Veerasamy, Dindigul vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Dindigul

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1505/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1505/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & Stay Application No.44/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.1505/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2017-18) Shri Srinivasan Sv.Veerasamy Acit बनाम 7/3, Pandrimalai Swamigal Street, Circle-(1), Balakrishnapuram Post, Dindigul. / Vs. Dindigul-624 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Arpps-3176-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The sole substantive grievance of the assessee in the captioned appeal is confirmation of addition of unexplained cash credit for Rs.130.60 Lacs u/s.68 as made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) while framing an assessment u/s 143(3) on 31-12-2019. The assessee ... could not explain the same. Therefore, the remaining increase in capital for Rs.130.60 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is in further challenge before us. 5. From

M/S Ramani Timber Corporation, Trichy vs. ACIT-Circle-3(1), Trichy

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1476/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1476/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ramani Timber Corporation Acit बनाम 3/132A. Tanjore Road, Opp.Udc Circle-3(1) / Vs. Kattur, Trichy-620 019. Trichy. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefr-9407-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 13-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 17-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 31-12-2018. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Earlier, The Tribunal Vide Its Order In Ita No.125/Chny/2020 Dated 09-11-2021 Had Set Aside The Appeal To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Pursuant To The Same, Impugned Order

For Appellant: Mrs. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

relevant assessment year. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.21 Lacs on account of unexplained cash credit. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us wherein the assessee assails impugned addition on merits as well