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.

73 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,404Delhi1,308Kolkata438Chennai407Ahmedabad368Jaipur365Bangalore227Chandigarh144Pune131Hyderabad130Rajkot121Indore116Surat112Visakhapatnam83Nagpur81Cochin73Amritsar71Raipur65Guwahati64Agra47Lucknow42Patna37Jodhpur25Allahabad20Cuttack20Calcutta6Dehradun5Ranchi5Telangana5Varanasi4SC2Panaji2Orissa2Karnataka2Gauhati1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 143(3)64Section 153A48Section 153C43Reassessment43Cash Deposit35Section 6833Section 13231Section 121Section 40

SRI. ELDHOSE K. VARGHESE,MUVATTUPUZHA vs. THEDCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

credit Cash shortage treated 920624 27372 - 270658 1066025 1043928 - As unexplained Investment Undisclosed income - - - 2930600 - - 544000 Purchase of land) Undisclosed income 200000 Money received from Sri KO Varghese Father) Undisclosed income - - - - - - 1315000 (money received from Sri Pelexy K Varghese, Brother) Profit on sale of land - - - - - - 36000 Section 153C

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

20
Demonetization20
Search & Seizure19

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

cash credit/ unexplained investment and as such he ought not to have invoked section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 6. For the above and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the learned ITAT may be Page 3 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 pleased to cancel the order under section 263 passed

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

cash credit/ unexplained investment and as such he ought not to have invoked section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 6. For the above and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the learned ITAT may be Page 3 ITA Nos. 302 & 303/Coch/2020 pleased to cancel the order under section 263 passed

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

unexplained cash credit. The reassessed total income was computed at ₹3,40,53,543. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 65/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

unexplained cash credit. The reassessed total income was computed at ₹3,40,53,543. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 79/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

cash credit in partners account and disallowance of remuneration paid to partners u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has challenged additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the expenditure

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 80/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

cash credit in partners account and disallowance of remuneration paid to partners u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has challenged additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the expenditure

M/S. PENTAGON BUILDERS,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011 ...

ITA 81/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Manjunatha G, Am

For Appellant: Sri. G.Surendranatha RaoFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 194CSection 40Section 40A

cash credit in partners account and disallowance of remuneration paid to partners u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has challenged additions made by the A.O. towards disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD, ATTINGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

unexplained cash credit whereas the same has already been added substantially in the case of one of the family member of director. Therefore the addition made resulted in double taxation and is bad in fact and should be deleted. 6. That the assessment order was passed against the principles of natural justice. The order was passed without giving the assessee

NAVDEEP EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KOLLAM

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

ITA 324/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Navdeep Educational Trust 38/109, Navdeep Mundakkal East 691001 Acit Vs. Kollam Circle Kerala Kollam Pan No : Aabtn0952H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/ Nfac Dated 26.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061508122(1) For The Ay 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

unexplained cash credit in the account of managing trustee Mr. Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 4 of 6 Cletus Austin vide order dated 29.12.2018. However, the reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 604/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in revisionary proceedings.Since the issues are interlinked, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. First we take up ITA No. 604/Coch/2024. 2. In both the appeals, there were delays of 29 days in filing the appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 608/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 pursuant to the directions of the PCIT in revisionary proceedings.Since the issues are interlinked, both appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order. First we take up ITA No. 604/Coch/2024. 2. In both the appeals, there were delays of 29 days in filing the appeals

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 585/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 582/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 584/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 580/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 581/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 586/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 583/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

unexplained investment made in cash towards purchase of immoveable properties was also seized. Thus, this is a case where sufficient incriminating material has been found by investigation team which indicates undisclosed income of the assessee. The aforesaid plea is also to be rejected in terms of decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar (75 Taxmann.com 215) wherein

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 298/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 68

unexplained credit under section 68 for the following reasons, 1. The appellant has taken two different stands i.e. the one during the course of reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers