On appeal, the High Court held that the explanation offered by the assessee was no explanation at all, and that the nature or source of acquisition of the money not having been explained it could only be treated as unexplained money.SLP of assessee was dismissed. (AY. 2017-18)
Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 390/305 Taxman 407 (SC) Editorial : Pankaj Gupta v. PCIT (2025) 477 ITR 387/174 taxmann.com 747 (Orissa)(HC)
S. 69A : Unexplained money – Denominations – Details not maintained – Nature of source of cash deposit was not explained satisfactorily – SLP of assessee dismissed. [Art. 136]
Leave a Reply