BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

106 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai735Delhi723Ahmedabad279Jaipur232Kolkata130Hyderabad129Chennai106Indore102Surat100Pune99Rajkot80Bangalore60Chandigarh51Amritsar43Cochin39Calcutta36Nagpur33Raipur30Allahabad29Agra26Lucknow21Visakhapatnam19Jodhpur10Jabalpur10Guwahati8Patna8Dehradun5Cuttack4Varanasi4Panaji3Telangana2Ranchi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Penalty56Section 271(1)(c)52Section 153A45Addition to Income44Section 6837Section 143(3)34Section 13231Section 26331Section 11

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

30
Section 5427
Exemption24
Cash Deposit21

unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Once the amount is held taxable u/s 68, no fault can be found with AO in applying tax rate as per provisions of section 115BBE of IT Act as it is inserted vide Finance Act, 2012 and applicable in case of income added u/s 68 Consequently, Ground of appeal relating to the issue is Dismissed

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Once the amount is held taxable u/s 68, no fault can be found with AO in applying tax rate as per provisions of section 115BBE of IT Act as it is inserted vide Finance Act, 2012 and applicable in case of income added u/s 68 Consequently, Ground of appeal relating to the issue is Dismissed

K.GURUMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2921/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 29.01.2020
Section 143(3)Section 147

unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee" is incorrect because: As explained in earlier paras the source for cash deposits in the bank is clearly explains and hence the Peak Credit addition treating as un explained is incorrect. Prayer: The Appellant here by earnestly pray to the Members of the Hon. ITAT that: 1) The Hon. Members

K.GURUMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2922/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr.A.R.V.Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 29.01.2020
Section 143(3)Section 147

unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee" is incorrect because: As explained in earlier paras the source for cash deposits in the bank is clearly explains and hence the Peak Credit addition treating as un explained is incorrect. Prayer: The Appellant here by earnestly pray to the Members of the Hon. ITAT that: 1) The Hon. Members

C.S.PROJECTS (I) PVT LTD.,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ERODE

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

ITA 3240/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 23.02.2021
Section 143(3)

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act for the reason that the assessee has failed to prove liability shown under the head map drawing charges and has also failed to prove unsecured loan taken from Mr.Karur Ramasamy amounting to `13,00,000/-. 7 7. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated by issue of notice

SHREE KRISHNA PLASTIC PROCESS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2509/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2509/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.Ramesh & Co, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s 271 (1) (c) (iii) there must be a positive income resulting in tax. The Penalty Imposed was in addition to any tax payable. If there was no tax, no penalty could be levied. 1.4 The appellant filed return declaring loss of Rs.1,86,62,094/- and after assessment by the A.O the loss was reduced

ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI vs. JAI GUHAN VENTURE PROPERTIES P LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 218/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Jai Guhan Venture Income-Tax, V. Properties Private Limited, Central Circle -3(3), Chennai Swathi Court, 41 Pent House, 46, Nungambakkam High No. 22, Vijayaraghava Road, Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aabcj-7113-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Meenakshi Sundaram
Section 132Section 153C

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: 5. In the return filed, assessee company has shown a capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- and issued unsecured loans of Rs. 6,29,93,970/-. On the assets side, it has shown cash bank balances of Rs. 32,22,413/-, Loans

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1828/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1803/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1593/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

SRI MAHARANI FINANCE CORPORATON,THIRUCHENGODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1264/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs.5.92 Lacs against the same in this year which was also admitted as undisclosed income. The assessee offered aggregate amount of Rs.53.92 Lacs in return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The returned income was accepted by Ld. AO. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty of admission

SRI MAHARANI FINANCE CORPORATION ,THIRUCHENGODE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1261/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs.5.92 Lacs against the same in this year which was also admitted as undisclosed income. The assessee offered aggregate amount of Rs.53.92 Lacs in return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The returned income was accepted by Ld. AO. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty of admission

SRI MAHARANI FINANCE CORPORATION,THIRUCHENGODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1262/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs.5.92 Lacs against the same in this year which was also admitted as undisclosed income. The assessee offered aggregate amount of Rs.53.92 Lacs in return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148. The returned income was accepted by Ld. AO. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty of admission

GOUTHAMCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CC-2(1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 580/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.580/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Gouthamchand, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 83/81, Abdul Aziz Street , Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aajpg5459L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai Dated 08.10.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Pawn Broking Business. The Assessing Officer Has Observed From Assessment Records Prior To The Assessment Year Under Consideration That The Assessee Was Having Taxable Income Much Above

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

cash deposit into bank account maintained with Catholic Syrian Bank of ₹.7,64,393/- and unexplained credit into bank account maintained with Federal Bank of ₹.1,03,67,696/-. 4. The first ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of addition towards disallowance of interest against unsecured loan of ₹.5,26,824/- by observing as under

SESHASAYEE RAJASEKAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT BUSINESS CIRCLE IV, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2304/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act by observing in para 10 as under:- “10. In view of the above, it is tobe noted that when he is able to prove the genuineness of his investment, why he cannot prove the genuineness of his creditors, if the said creditors are prudent. The modus operandi is to convert the unaccounted cash

T.SAKTHIVEL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 261/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

credit is fully justified.” In view of the above, the ld.counsel stated that going through the business model of the assessee i.e., the receipts of supplies is always in cash and the same cash is deposited and in that eventuality entire cash cannot be treated as unexplained because the assessee is able to explain the same. The ld.counsel stated that

T.SAKTHIVEL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 259/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

credit is fully justified.” In view of the above, the ld.counsel stated that going through the business model of the assessee i.e., the receipts of supplies is always in cash and the same cash is deposited and in that eventuality entire cash cannot be treated as unexplained because the assessee is able to explain the same. The ld.counsel stated that

T.SAKTHIVEL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 260/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

credit is fully justified.” In view of the above, the ld.counsel stated that going through the business model of the assessee i.e., the receipts of supplies is always in cash and the same cash is deposited and in that eventuality entire cash cannot be treated as unexplained because the assessee is able to explain the same. The ld.counsel stated that

SHRI MUKESH AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3093/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3093/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Mr.Mukesh Agarwal, The Dy. Commissioner- No.127A, Brickline Road, Flat 3181, Of Income Tax, Tvh Kumbini Square, 18Th Floor, Central Circle-3(2), 3Rd Block, Purasawalkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aafpk 6968 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 3,05,00,000/- Total assessed income 3,47,48,660/- Income tax payable 1,73,30,574/- Advance tax 0 TDS 11,21,230/- 140 A 41,226/- Total taxes paid 11,62,456/- Balance tax payable 1,61,68,118/- This order has been passed with the necessary approval of the Joint Commissioner