← 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

Shankerraj Impex Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4104/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

thus, partly allowed.” 4. Learned counsel further submits that both the lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits in A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. Be that as it may, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee ... same shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. So far as the assessee’s further ground seeking to reverse section 68 unexplained cash credits addition (supra) is concerned. We hereby conclude that the same prima facie forms part of the assessee’s business turnover only i.e. emanating from cash

Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward - 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4103/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

thus, partly allowed.” 4. Learned counsel further submits that both the lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits in A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. Be that as it may, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee ... same shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. So far as the assessee’s further ground seeking to reverse section 68 unexplained cash credits addition (supra) is concerned. We hereby conclude that the same prima facie forms part of the assessee’s business turnover only i.e. emanating from cash

Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward - 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4102/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147

thus, partly allowed.” 4. Learned counsel further submits that both the lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits in A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. Be that as it may, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee ... same shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. So far as the assessee’s further ground seeking to reverse section 68 unexplained cash credits addition (supra) is concerned. We hereby conclude that the same prima facie forms part of the assessee’s business turnover only i.e. emanating from cash

Chander Sekhar Pahariya, Bhander vs. Assessing Officer, Gwalior

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

income from other sources, Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and Rs.30,52,957/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) against the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated ... whether Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,03,753/- as unexplained money and Rs.30,52,957/- as unexplained cash credit in the total income of the assessee ? 7. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that the saving bank account No. 1955300262 maintained with Central Bank

Income Tax Officer, Kakinada vs. Three Seasons Ware Housing, Rajeswari Nagar

ITA 554/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 554/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Three Seasons Ware Ward-1, Housing, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aajft4738R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 41/Viz/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.554/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Three Seasons Ware Ward-1, Housing, Kakinada. Kakinada. Pan: Aajft4738R (Cross Objector) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14/11/2025 Pronouncement: Co No.41/Viz/2025 Ito Vs. Three Seasons Ware Housing

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271ASection 68

Three Seasons Exim Ltd has been properly explained and hence, no addition can be made U/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits. Therefore, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition made U/s.68 of the Act thereby allowing the Ground No.3 raised by the assessee. 8. Ground

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Rajiv Gupta, Hyderabad

ITA 278/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Rajiv Gupta, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Cirle-8(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Acapg4029K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. SNSR Chinmai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

section 10(38) of the Act and treated the entire amount of sale proceeds of shares of Rs. 19,30,750/- as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Apart from that, the AO held a conviction that the assessee 3 ACIT vs. Rajiv Gupta would have

Sangeeta Yadav, K V Ranga Reddy vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1506/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed.

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

period under Section 69A of the Act, addition of Rs.26,35,565/- u/s 68 of the 3 Sangeeta Yadav Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit towards opening capital not explained by the assessee, and further addition of Rs.19,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act towards unsecured loans

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1498/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

year under consideration and allowed credit to the extent of income declared by the assessee and shortfall has been treated as unexplained cash credit. The learned counsel for the assessee further, referring to the income declared by the assessee for the earlier assessment year submitted that, the assessee had declared

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1497/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

year under consideration and allowed credit to the extent of income declared by the assessee and shortfall has been treated as unexplained cash credit. The learned counsel for the assessee further, referring to the income declared by the assessee for the earlier assessment year submitted that, the assessee had declared

Reddy Sampat Vijaya, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1496/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

year under consideration and allowed credit to the extent of income declared by the assessee and shortfall has been treated as unexplained cash credit. The learned counsel for the assessee further, referring to the income declared by the assessee for the earlier assessment year submitted that, the assessee had declared

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Archeesh Health Care Private Limited, K V Ranga Reddy

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

ITA 124/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 35DSection 37

Revenue. 15. Coming back to the deletion of addition made towards share capital of Rs. 4.80 crores u/s 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit. The A.O. made additions towards share capital of Rs. 4.80 crores on the ground that, the assessee has failed to establish the identity

Kavita Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1377/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kavita Agarwal…………………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 81, Arihand Garden, Southern Avenue Flat No.3A, 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700029.. [Pan: Adbpa8919N] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(2), Kolkata……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Saswati Mitra Dutta & Rajeshree Dutta, Advocates, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Dipu Koley, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011–12. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 818 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 147Section 250Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

declaring total income of Rs.5,74,440/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessee making an addition of Rs.4,02,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit and levied the penalty of Rs.86,835/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed

M/S Omega Investments & Properties Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5914/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrim/S. Omega Investments & Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Properties Ltd. Income Tax 34-B, 3Rd Floor, Jolly Maker Circle 3(2)(2), Aayakar Chambers Ii, Nariman Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Point, Mumbai-400021. Rd, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaco0978L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan- Sr
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 80I

u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating the genuine loan from M/s. Vanquish Inv and Leasing Pvt. Ltd as alleged Unexplained Cash credit, without considering the fact that during the year under consideration the appellant had taken loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- only and the same ... u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the genuine Advance received against booking of flats as alleged Unexplained Cash credit, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred

Mrs. Sanjana Anil Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised

ITA 4194/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Mrs. Sanjana Anil Agarwal Ito, 18(3)(2), Mumbai 27/31, Botawala Building, 3Rd Floor, Vs Earnest House, Nariman Point, Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Maharashtra – 400021. Maharashtra - 400002. [Pan: Abgpa3779D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

issued show cause notice dated 31.12.2016 as to why the amount of long term capital gain claimed by assessee be not treated as unexplained cash credit and taxed under section 68 of Income Tax Act. The assessing officer has not recorded if any reply was filed ... assessing officer concluded that generation of long term capital gain through the process of entry provider through different entities is nothing but unexplained cash credit. The assessing officer treated the long term capital gain of Rs. 4.53 Crore as unexplained and added under section 68 of the Act. The assessing

Ankit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-35(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5507/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaankit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 35 (3), L – 153, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 052. (Pan : Amhpg1493N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Shri Rajiv Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 03.10.2024For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Trading, Sales Of Socks, Fabrics & Hosiery Etc. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 25.01.2018 For A.Y. 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

taxman.com 259 (Chennai Trib), confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash credits as they were not proved with sources for such deposits by the assessee. After considering the above facts, it is clearly established that the appellant has completely failed to explain the source of cash

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. R P Milkmade Products Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3414/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

determining total income at Rs. 1,66,13,000/- on account of disallowance u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act treating it as unexplained cash credit. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has deposited cash in its bank account. The assessee

Swapnil Prabhakar Naik, Khandola Marcela vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) Panaji, Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 5ASection 68

Mumbai erred in confirming the addition on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 without appreciating the supporting ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 10 Swapnil Prabhakar Naik Vs ITO ITA No.: 121/PAN/2025

Santosh Kumar, Supaul vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Saharsa

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

ITA 294/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) failed in confirming action of Assessing Officer taxing deposit of Rs. 1859000/- as Unexplained cash credit U/s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 12. For that on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing officer as well

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

creditworthiness of the lender. M/s RPIPL returned loss of Rs.2.84 Lacs during this year. Accordingly, the advance of Rs.5.28 Crores was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 2.8 Apart from this, the assessee obtained unsecured loans of Rs.179.75 Lacs from 11 parties and furnished various documents in terms ... lending parties was low and bank statement of these parties was not furnished by the assessee. Therefore, these loans were added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the assessment was framed. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee, in its submissions, assailed the reopening of the assessment on legal grounds

Sushila Devi Choudhury, Birbhum vs. I.T.O., Circle - 1, Suri

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

ITA 2073/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2073/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Sushila Devi Choudhury,……….………...……Appellant College Road, Sainthia, Birbhum-731234, West Bengal [Pan:Acepc4570F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………..……..Respondent Circle-1, Suri

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

books maintained in the form of unsecured loan is not found to be satisfactory and he treated Rs.10,00,055/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer determined the total assessed income ... revenue authorities. He further submitted that the loan was only on accommodation entry, therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer made the addition as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, ld. D.R. pleaded before the Bench to uphold the orders passed by the lower authorities