https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774980 The ITAT Raipur held that the AO incorrectly applied Section 69 instead of Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had cash deposits in Oriental Bank of Commerce account held jointly with two others, resulting in addition of 1/3 share as unexplained income. The tribunal found that Section 69 applies to unexplained investments in moveable or immoveable property, while Section 69A covers unexplained money, bullion, jewelry or valuable articles. Since the case involved unexplained cash deposits rather than property investments, Section 69A was the appropriate provision. The wrong application of law demonstrated non-application of mind by the AO, rendering the addition void ab initio. Following precedent from Sanjeev Kumar case, the tribunal ruled that additions made under incorrect charging sections are unsustainable and decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774980 The ITAT Raipur held that the AO incorrectly applied Section 69 instead of Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had cash deposits in Oriental Bank of Commerce account held jointly with two others, resulting in addition of 1/3 share as unexplained income. The tribunal found that Section 69 applies to unexplained investments in moveable or immoveable property, while Section 69A covers unexplained money, bullion, jewelry or valuable articles. Since the case involved unexplained cash deposits rather than property investments, Section 69A was the appropriate provision. The wrong application of law demonstrated non-application of mind by the AO, rendering the addition void ab initio. Following precedent from Sanjeev Kumar case, the tribunal ruled that additions made under incorrect charging sections are unsustainable and decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774980