← 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

ITO, Ward-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bansal Separators and Spares Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3173/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleito – Ward – 14(1)(1) V. M/S. Bansal Separators & Spares Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 431, 4Th Floor 6, Laxminarayan Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sion Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aabcb8468M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Jalan timbers v. CIT [213 ITR 11] he held that the unsecured loans received by the assessee are treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he added to the total income of the assessee. Similarly, he also disallowed Page No. | 3 M/s. Bansal Separators and Spares ... facts and has added the loans received by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,72,79,547/- on the account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Ld. AO has sent notices u/s 133(6) to all the lenders to confirm the loan transactions and also

Maneken Keshvalla Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Delhi

ITA 1107/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Maneken Keshvalla Patel, National Faceless Appeal 1 Manekkunj, Anandpur Vas Centre (Nfac) Vs. At Pundhara Ta : Mansa- Income Tax Department, 382855 Gandhiangar, Gujarat Ministry Of Finance, India-382855 Delhi-110001. Pan No. Alfpp 7410 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mehul Talera, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

impugned credits in said bank account and allowed sufficient opportunity to explain the same. It is, therefore, prayed that addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 Rs.63,76,868/- deserves to be deleted. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on receipt of the information from the Investigation ... order on 20/12/2018 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act and added the deposits of Rs.63,76,868/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act observing as under: “6. The requirement of statutory notices issued from time to time affording the assessee opportunity

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4387/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4386/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4385/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4384/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4383/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4382/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

wherein various , wherein various additions for total deposits in bank accounts, deposits in bank accounts, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit, cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit cash deposits in bank accounts, unexplained cash credit commission for circular fund movement commission for circular fund movement ... made by the Assessing Officer in resp made by the Assessing Officer in respect of unexplained cash credit f unexplained cash credit on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis of the revised balance sheet furnished by the assessee. on the basis

Yashasvi Parakh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 140/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 140/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yashasvi Parakh C/O. Shri Kantilal Parakh 66, Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Bbspp0705K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

recharacterizing of gift claimed by the assessee to have been received from Shri Yogesh Parakh, proprietor of M/s. Mahaveer Transport, as an unexplained cash credit : Rs.6 lac, the income of the assessee was assessed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated 29.12.2016 at Rs.23

M/S Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 972/RJT/2010[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2006-07

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

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 68

ACIT (2) That, the learned CIT(A) has confirmed addition of Rs.40,00,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit. (3) That, the finding of the learned CIT (A) are not justified in law as well as facts of the case and required to be deleted. 9. Regarding ... does not require any interference and the ground raised by the Assessee is hereby rejected. 10. Ground no. 2 addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Here also the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence that the loan creditor

Ghanshyam Patidar, Ujjain vs. The ITO1 (2), Ujjain

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

ITA 27/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanighanshyam Patidar Ito 1(2) Ram Mandir Path Tarana Ujjain Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Djbpp 7093 F Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

Section 131Section 144Section 44ASection 68

case and in law, the Ld. CIT grossly erred in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs.1,41,400/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT grossly erred in partly confirming addition

ACIT(Central)-2, Indore vs. Shri Aakash Shukla, Indore

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 43/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit(Central)-1 Shri Aakash Shukla Indore 94, Banganga Main Road Vs. Indore

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 148Section 68

deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 4,50,00,000/- made by AO u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained cash credit and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 31,64,774/-" 2."Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case ... above, addition of Rs.4,50,00,000/- in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs.75,00,000/- in A.Y. 2014- 15 on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act are hereby deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed. 3.4 Ground No. 2 of A.Ys

Umadevi Shivnarayan Garg, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

ITA 68/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Umadevi Shivnarayan Garg, Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-1, Surat, Room No.123, 1St Floor, 513, Sai Darshan Market, Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpg 0885 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Malpani, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

completed on 30.03.2021 determining the total income at Rs.1,87,34,020/- by making addition of Rs.1,82,46,940/- on account of unexplained cash credits. 4. Later on, Ld PCIT exercised his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. It was observed by ld PCIT from the audit report ... assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated this transaction as non-genuine and made addition of Rs.1,82,46,940/- on account of unexplained cash credit and added it to the total income of the assessee, for the year under consideration. 6. However, on perusal of confirmation ledger furnished

Rajesh Somnay, Mumbai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 533/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 54

case of mother of the Appellant in reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the DRP concluded that only unexplained cash credit income of INR 33,16,363/- has been brought to tax in the hands of the mother of the Appellant which is contrary to claim

Tammi Raju Vegesna, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Amalapuram

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

ITA 122/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.122/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Tammi Raju Vegesna, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-2, Pan: Aaqpv 7090 R Amalapuram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appellant. 4 2. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit U/s. 69A made by the Ld. AO. 3. The Ld. First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making

Dy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat

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

ITA 202/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 89,83,700/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting ... addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 89,83,700/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that despite providing sufficient opportunities, the assessee has failed to furnish necessary supporting evidences to substantiate the source of cash found from the possession

M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

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

ITA 184/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 89,83,700/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting ... addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 89,83,700/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that despite providing sufficient opportunities, the assessee has failed to furnish necessary supporting evidences to substantiate the source of cash found from the possession

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

deleted. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making the addition on sale of property amounting to Rs. 61,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the submissions made by the appellant and without appreciating the facts of the case. 4. Without ... claim of the assessee in the revised computation income is denied. Finally the A.O has made an addition of Rs.61,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.62,26,120/- and passed draft assessement order u/s 144C r.w.s147

Chetan Lachmandas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 386/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychetan Lachmandas Ito, Bhatia, C-309, 3Rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aotpb9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 13.12.2022 Passed By Ito, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In Short ‘ The Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15, Pursuant To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) Dated 28.11.2022. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Alongwith Form No.36 Were Revised By The Assessee. The Revised Grounds Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR
Section 147Section 148

facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 74,57,158/-by treating the credits in bank account of the appellant as unexplained cash credits, despite Rs. 25,00,000/- out of the same being proceeds of mutual funds and therefore stood fully explained. 4. The learned ... consequently erred in not restricting the addition on account of unexplained cash credits to Rs. 49,57,158/-. 5. The appellant craves leave to add alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts