← 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

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

basis of clinching documentary evidences duly substantiated the authenticity of the loan transactions in question, therefore, the treating of the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by the A.O was liable to be vacated. We shall hereinafter deal with the re-characterizations of the respective loans ... raised by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by the A.O, as under : (A). Loans raised by the assessee from the companies: (i). Admittedly, it is a matter of fact that the A.O in order to verify the authenticity

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

basis of clinching documentary evidences duly substantiated the authenticity of the loan transactions in question, therefore, the treating of the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by the A.O was liable to be vacated. We shall hereinafter deal with the re-characterizations of the respective loans ... raised by the assessee during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by the A.O, as under : (A). Loans raised by the assessee from the companies: (i). Admittedly, it is a matter of fact that the A.O in order to verify the authenticity

ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi vs. Opal Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi

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

ITA 2829/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,60,00,0001- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 37,746/- and the case ... committed error in deleting addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the satisfaction note for initiating the proceeding u/s 153C by the AO having jurisdiction over

Opal Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

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

ITA 1558/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,60,00,0001- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 37,746/- and the case ... committed error in deleting addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the satisfaction note for initiating the proceeding u/s 153C by the AO having jurisdiction over

Opal Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

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

ITA 1557/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,60,00,0001- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income at Rs. 37,746/- and the case ... committed error in deleting addition of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the satisfaction note for initiating the proceeding u/s 153C by the AO having jurisdiction over

Avantha Reality Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-17(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1614/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B.B. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usavantha Reality Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 3Rd Floor, Vatika First India Circle-17(1), Place, Mg Road, Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana 122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacj8030A

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

action of the assessing officer in making an addition of INR 84,45,205 on account of dividend received by assessee as unexplained cash credits, without appreciating that dividend income is exempt from tax under the provisions of section 10(34) of the Act. 7.1 That on the facts

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Aashikyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9025/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

erred in law while deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by A.O. in respect of unexplained cash credit for which no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the assessee in view of the amended provisions to section 68 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and therefore the burden u/s 68 could ... while deleting the addition of Rs. 2 Aashiyana Civil Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 2,00,00,000/- made by A.O. in respect of unexplained cash credit, failed to appreciate that no evidence was given during asst proceedings and that during remand proceedings also the bank statement of creditors could

Kamlesh in Capacity of L/H of Late Shri Sultan Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Waqrd-4, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5815/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrykamlesh In Capacity Of Vs. Ito L/H Of Late Sh. Sultan Ward – 4, Singh, W/O Late Sultan Panipat Singh, Village-Nawada Aar, Panipat Pan No. Blxps 6358 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Karnal Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 147Section 148Section 68

After considering the aforesaid information, AO considered the balance amount of Rs.52,39,000/- [74,00,000 – 22,01,000] as unexplained cash credit and made its addition u/s 68 of the Act as assessee’s income from undisclosed sources. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

bank account. Out of above, Rs. 4.72 crores pertained to sales before demonetisation period. The AO, treated the sales as unexplained cash credits, as no details of sales were provided, and made addition of Rs. 4.72 crores u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Hon’ble Bench held that where assessee has admitted ... observed that the AO had treated the cash deposited in the bank during the demonetization period in demonetized currency as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act although the nature and source of the cash deposits being proceeds arising out of cash sales etc. was evident from the entries

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act and had treated the loans taken by the assessee as unexplained cash credit. It was the submission that in the course of assessment, the assessee had produced the copies of returns of income of the lenders alongwith their ... year." 9. The phraseology of section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

holding that Assessing Officer had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs. 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit. Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors v. Pr. CIT 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly ... section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors v. Pr. CIT primary onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act had not been discharged

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

holding that Assessing Officer had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs. 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit. Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors v. Pr. CIT 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly ... section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors v. Pr. CIT primary onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act had not been discharged

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

holding that Assessing Officer had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs. 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit. Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors v. Pr. CIT 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar has grossly ... section 68 of the Act. The AO had no material on record to accept the explanation that Rs 20,00,000/- was not unexplained cash credit as the Harneet Kaur Jujeja & Ors v. Pr. CIT primary onus cast upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act had not been discharged

Willow Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-27(3), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 2325/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 68

facts in upholding an addition of Rs.43,00,000/- representing advance raised by the appellant and held to be unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 1.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has duly discharged the burden by establishing

Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 259/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 259/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhatia Energy & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Near Bank Of India, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aadcb8992N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

money from the aforementioned share subscriber company, therefore, the A.O vide his order passed u/ss.143(3)/147 dated 28.12.2018 dubbed the same as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and determined the income of the assessee company at Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter ... cast upon it as regards proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the aforesaid transactions, thus, held the amount of Rs.25 lac as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. 7. On a perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals), I find that he had merely endorsed the observation

Pawan Meena, Plot No.91 vs. ITO, WD2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/JPR/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

facts of the case in making addition to the tune of Rs. 62,97,000/- to the returned income on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 even when all the requisite information/documents called for were duly submitted during assessment proceedings. Brief Submission:- The appellant ... sham or fabricated ? Your good self will appreciate that without proving the credit into bank account from Shri Arjun Yadav to be sham & unexplained cash credit ,the AO could not have made addition of cash redeposit as withdrawal from bank account was gospel truth and formed immediate source of cash

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. M/S Mayur Industries, Fatepur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/IND/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

For Appellant: 19.12.2022For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

made by the Assessing Officer on account of capital introduced by partners, treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running of a flour mill. On 23.01.2018, a search and seizure operation ... partners is Deleted. Thus, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed. Since the addition as made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have already been deleted on merit. Therefore, the charging of tax liability as per amended provisions

Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh Represented Through His Son Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 140/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee has not furnished source of cash deposit nor any explanation was furnished. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. I find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. Alongwith written submissions

Late Noorulkalam Abdulmajid Shaikh Represented Through His Son Husnejamal Nurulkalam Shaikh, Surat vs. ITO Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 139/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee has not furnished source of cash deposit nor any explanation was furnished. The Assessing Officer added the entire amount on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. I find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. Alongwith written submissions

Swami Shree Panna Collection, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(1), Delhi

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

ITA 189/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

hearing. 7. The Ld. assessing officer is not justified in making an addition of cash in hand / collection from the debtors as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of Income tax Act. 8. The appellant had seek adjournment in reply to notice under section 250 by logging online