“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

Roselabs Polymers Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 425/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2012-13 An Exparte Appellate Order Was Passed. For The Assessment Year 2012-13 One Shri Sagar Vasoya Appeared Before Ld. Cit(A), However The Assessee Appeal Was Dismissed By A Detailed Speaking Order.

Section 143(3)Section 68

declaring a loss of Rs.9,52,27,210/-. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of - (a) Rs.24,74,05,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act being the share application money received from various parties, (b) Rs.6,94,61,653/- being the purchases

Roselabs Polymers Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 28/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S. Tabassum Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 914/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 68

against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 45,00,00,000/- by the AO on account of share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. After perusing the assessment order as well as appellate order, we observe that the assessee has received money ... well as the Ld. CIT(A) without the requisite details/evidences on the part of the assessee. Consequently the amount was added as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee and assessment was framed u/s 143(3)/254 of the Act. We note that this was a case where

M/S. Brightstar Vincom Pvt.Ltd., 700007 vs. I.T.A, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Brightstar Vincom Pvt. Ltd…..…......................…...……………....Appellant 18/1, 4Th Floor, Room No.48, M.D. Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aadcb2082R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Kolkata........…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 21, 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 30.01.2023 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’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 234Section 250Section 68

appeal: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs. 3,58,00,000 on account of unexplained cash credit being share capital and premium u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was not even received during the said year

Pawan Kumar Bansal, Howrah vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1223/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271ASection 68

Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: “-1. That the A.O erred in making addition of Rs.38,00,000/ - as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the assessee received the said amount on account of unsecured loan ... Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) determining the total Income at Rs.1,45,54,180/-, considering the said loan transaction as bogus and unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3.1. Assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs 38 lakhs during the year under consideration from VRC which according

Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 250/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), 55, Ezra Street Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcv9938N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A/R Revenue By : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -10 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(E)”) Dt. 02/12/2019, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Io, Kolkata Erred In Passing An Order Dated 2Nd Of December, 2019 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Without Allowing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 10, Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Share Application Money Ofrs. 5,86,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

Vish Realty Solutions Private Limited Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and accordingly addition of this amount was made by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Similarly, for assessment year 2012-13, there was information from Investigation Wing regarding unaccounted income ... application money. Even otherwise ld. AO has not made the addition for charging of higher share premium and has made the addition of unexplained cash credit but still charging of share premium is a commercial decision and the same can be challenged only with sufficient documentary evidence. It thus brings

Mohammad Ibraheem Khatri, Khandwa vs. The ITO-1, Khandwa

In the result, the appeal of assesse is allowed

ITA 388/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raomohammad Ibraheem Khatri Ito-1 (Prop. Pakeeza Collection) Khandwa 42, Sanjay Colony, Nagchoon Vs. Road Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Bhrpk3840B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 115BSection 68

Khatri Page 2 of 7 the appellant out of cash deposited in his bank accounts during the demonetization period by treating it as unexplained cash credit section 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and consequently charged tax at the rates prescribed under section 115BBE of the Income ... assesse during the non-demonetization period for the year under consideration. Accordingly the AO has made addition of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The assesse challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) however, there was no representation on behalf

Radhakrishna Akshar Vikas Nyas, Vidisha vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 11Section 115BSection 68

making the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the total income of the appellant on account of treating unsecured loans as the unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. A.O has failed to provide the reasonable opportunity to the appellant ... authorities below. 12. We have considered rival submission as well as relevant material on record. The AO treated the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and consequently denied the benefit of section 11 of the Act. On appeal the CIT(A) has confirmed addition made

ITO-41(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Ramanlal Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 1492/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.P.D.Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

learned Assessing Officer, the Jeans taken during the year of Rs.7,75,70,000/- have been added by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. 3. The Appellant has thus ultimately been assessed at income of Rs.7,78,18,290/- in this order. Aggrieved by the addition ... lenders. 4.2 Findings of the learned Assessing Officer: - However, the learned Assessing Officer has, however, chosen to treat the two loans as unexplained cash credits and added the same to the income of the Appellant u/s 68In doing so, he has relied on the following inferences drawn

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata vs. Manav Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 834/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68

upholding the order of AO where the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act” however the correct sentence would be “The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) reversing ... order of AO where the AO has made addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.” It was also pointed out that the last sentence in para 7 was also wrong added and reads as “The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

Casa Grande Civil Engineering Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.64/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Jcit (Osd) Engineering Private Limited Corporate Circle-1(1) बनाम/ Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.189/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jcit (Osd) M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering बनाम Corporate Circle-1(1) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. / Vs. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.49/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.189/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बनाम/ M/S. Casa Grande Civil Engineering Jcit (Osd) Private Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Npl Devi, Lb Road, Chenai-34. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-5227-K (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Reddi Prakash (Ca)- Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

case and appellants submission. 4. The learned assessing officer and the CIT(A) erred in treating the amount received from the customers as unexplained cash credit disregarding the submission of the appellant. 5. The assessing officer erred in disregarding the submissions of the appellant with regard to the adjustments proposed ... three issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS on interest payment; (ii) Addition of unexplained cash credit; (iii) Disallowance of default in deposit of Service Tax Payments. 7. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS on interest payment

JCIT(OSD), Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Casa Grande Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri G. Reddi Prakash (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Hallmark Infrastructure Private Iimited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward 2(3). Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 1446/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1446/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hallmark Infrastructure Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), 43, United Plaza, Usman Road, Chennai – 34. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aabch 5970J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

tune of Rs.16,53,323 alone can be given credit and therefore, the balance cash of Rs.85,82,877/- is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2725/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

Assessing Officer treated these loans as bogus in nature and accordingly assessed them in the respective assessment years as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also taken the 3 Reliance Corporation view that the assessee would have paid commission for procuring bogus accommodation ... them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit.”…………… 21. Accordingly in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent in our considered opinion assessee has given all the necessary details required for establishment

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle - 1, Thane

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2724/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle - 1, Thane

ITA 2723/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 147Section 68

Assessing Officer treated these loans as bogus in nature and accordingly assessed them in the respective assessment years as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also taken the view that the assessee would have paid commission for procuring bogus accommodation entries ... them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit.”. Accordingly in the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent in our considered opinion assessee has given all the necessary details required for establishment

Chirag Tejprakash Dangi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 3256/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 148Section 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 ... documents furnished by the assessee. 15. We noticed earlier that the AO has assessed the Sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the purchase of shares made in an earlier year has been accepted by the revenue

Kgvk Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2., Kolkata

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

ITA 549/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 115BSection 2Section 263Section 68

suppressed sale is to be made or not, whereas the issue before the ld. Commissioner was whether it is to be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 or the sales representing out of regular business. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner is fully justified in taking cognizance of the issue

Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-292), Kolkata

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

ITA 1261/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1261/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Aryavrat Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.,......................Appellant 14, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 17, Kolkata-700013 [Pan: Aahca4737A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

additions of Rs.47,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- which have been added with the aid of section 69 by treating as unexplained cash credit by the ld. Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has confirmed these additions by way of the impugned ex-parte order. 3. The ld. Counsel ... recorded a finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of such investments and, therefore, these investments are to be treated as unexplained cash credit, though he made addition under section 69 instead of section 68. In this way, ld. Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.72

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh