“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

Atharv Business Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2497/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Shailja Rai, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

protective basis. It is also not in dispute that substantive addition qua the amount in question on account of unexplained cash credits relating to Spanco Group of companies amounting to Rs.47.39 crore has already been upheld in case of Pravin Jain & Co. by the Ld. CIT(A) and the addition ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) given the relief to the assessee by returning following findings: “22.3 Since the substantive assessment on account of unexplained cash credit relating to Spanco Group of companies amounting to Rs.47.39 crores had already been upheld in the case of Shri Parveen Kumar Jain

ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 2994/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Income Tax Officer- Vs. M/S Realstone Exports 11(1)(2), Room No. 202, Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal M.K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Tulij, Nallasopara (East) Thane, Maharashtra- 401209 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccr8504K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: None

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to 0 15% without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish ITA No.2994/Mum/2017

M/S. Vasavi Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Raichur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubali

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

ITA 365/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

holding that the deposits made in the bank account of the appellant in SBN's during demonetization was liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. The learned P.C.I.T is not justified in law in directing the learned A.O. to tax the interest income

Rakyan Beverages Private Limited, Raigarh vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane (DR)

Section 68

Pr.CIT Vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd (supra), the AO added the closing balance of share premium of Rs.115,56,95,385/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO/NFAC, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... celebrity endorser, but the Ld. CIT(A) had still confirmed the premium of Rs.4,02,44,630/- relatable to her as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, which according to the Ld. Sr. counsel was impermissible in law and against Rule of Law. 12. It was brought

M/S. Gagan Polycot India Ltc., Palghar vs. DCIT Circle-4, Thane

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

ITA 1768/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Gagan Polycot India Ltd Vs Dy.Cit, Circle-4, Thane Gala No.2, Shiv Shankar Industrial Room No.2, B-Wing, Ashar I T Park Estate No.1, Waliv Phata, Village – Wagle Indl. Estate, Ambika Nagar Waliv, Vasai East, Palghar-401 607 Thane-400 602 Pan : Aaacg8467G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: “1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee’s appeal without allowing rea

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section 143(3) dated 29/02/2016 was passed and addition of Rs.20,05,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and an addition of Rs.2,25,000/- on account of cash payment to M/s Parks Multi Trade

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

source and nature of receipts was submitted. He was of the view that income of the assessee should have been assessed as unexplained cash credit, rather than business income and added back as income u/s. 68 taxed at special rate u/s. 115BBE of the Act. He observed that ... invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’. The PCIT has stated that the AO ought to have treated the income as “unexplained cash credit” that should have been added u/s.68. This contention is not tenable since for the purpose of invoking section 68, the cash credit should have been

Isha Vijay Udani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 949/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blems. Isha Vijay Udani V. Cit(Appeals)-36 A/11, Aditya Apartment 707B, C-10 Old Nagardas Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400059 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Acbpu4746L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukesh Choksy Department By : Shri R.N. D'Souza

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ChoksyFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D'Souza

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

broker who also charges a particular share of commission. In such a case, the theory of AO to treat the entire deposit as unexplained cash credits cannot be accepted in light of Assessment Order in the case of beneficiaries and also in the light of the fact that assessee

M/S. Yelahanka - Ap Border Tollways Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 68

made u/s. 41[1] of the Act by the learned A.O. by holding that the same was liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate ... justified in rejecting the bonafide explanation tendered by the appellant and holding the outstanding balance of creditors of Rs.1,34.62,545/- to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act especially considering that payments have been made to creditors in the subsequent years via banking channels and thus

Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 377/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 68

order of CIT(A) dated 28.3.2022. 2. First ground of appeal is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.16,96,823/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) being the opening cash on hand claimed by assessee for which statements were filed

M/S. Navajyothi Trust, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Mysuru

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

ITA 688/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234Section 68

alleged cash deposits in SBN notes made by the appellant during the demonetization period in its bank account treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 rws 115BBE of the Act without appreciating that the actual cash deposits in SBN was only Rs. 6,09,000/-. 2.1 The addition ... assessee has raised additional grounds as follows:- 1. “The authorities below are not justified in adding a sum of Rs.14,48,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, in respect of the cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the appellant during the period

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

assessee during the demonetization period, deposited a sum of Rs.29,63,000 into assessee’s bank account, which is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act. The contention of the learned AR is that the amount has been received by the assessee from its members listed

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

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

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 46ASection 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the same is liable to be annulled under the facts and circumstances of the case. Page ... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and the same is liable to be annulled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Commissioner

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

under: - Income from House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6122/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

upholding the addition of l addition of loan aggregating to Rs. 32,50,000/ oan aggregating to Rs. 32,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. All the above grounds are independent and without All the above ... upholding the addition of loan aggregating to Rs. 38,75,000/ of loan aggregating to Rs. 38,75,000/- as unexplained cash credit ained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. (b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and law in not appreciating that

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6121/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

M/S. C. M.. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2122/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2122 & 2123/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Cm Bright Bars Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(1) Ltd,705, B Wing, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Kamal, Dr. Babasaheb M.K.Road, Ambekar Road, Churchgate, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4577A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. Ar Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Viraj Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. AR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 32Section 68

assessee could not prove the genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the investors and the share application money was treated as unexplained cash credit of Rs.3,75,00,000/-. Similarly the A.O. has disallowed the claim of deprecation on Assets of Rs.21,81,339/- and assessed the total income of Rs.6

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Green Valley Raltors, Mumbai

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

ITA 2158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

find that the profits figure credited to the account of the investors is sought to be added by the ld. AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. We have already held hereinabove that the assessee had duly proved all the three necessary ingredients of section

Smt.Sushiladevi Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4015/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee that the cash deposits were sourced out of cash withdrawals from bank and proceeded to treat the cash deposits as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added Rs 48,20,000/- to the total income of the assessee. This action of the ld. AO was upheld

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Galore Suppliers Pvt Ltd, M/s Landmark Suppliers Pt Ltd and M/s Kingfisher Properties Pvt Ltd made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee received as unsecured loan from those entities, who were providing accommodation ... Galore Suppliers Pt Ltd, M/s Landmark Suppliers Pt Ltd and M/s Kingfisher Properties Pt Ltd made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Sumati Dayal

Deepak Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1535/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdeepak Jain Vs. Ito – 33(1)(4) 202, Emp 54, Evershine (Formerly Assessed By Millanium Paradize, Ito 25(3)(2),R No. Thakur Vill, Kandivali (E) 708, 7Th Floor, C- Mumbai – 400101 12,Pratyakshakar Bhavan Bkc,Bandra- Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacpj1817E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt.Mahita Nair.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 45, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Mahita Nair.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

also the assessee has incurred the expenditure for purchase of property and was not disclosed. Finally, the A.O has made an addition of unexplained cash credits in the bank account u/s 68 of the Act and unexplained investments U/sec 69C of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.88