Landmark Cases on Cash Credits and Unexplained Money

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.

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

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.

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.

An assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of any cash credit or transaction. If the assessee fails to discharge this burden with cogent evidence and explanation, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions to their income, and no further burden lies on the revenue.

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

When an assessee seeks to explain a cash credit under Section 68, they must prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity to advance money, and the genuineness of the transactions. The burden of proof is not discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters or demonstrating banking channel transactions.

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

The onus lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source and nature of any unexplained cash or credit entries; if they fail to do so, the amount is treated as taxable income. The Income Tax Department is not required to locate the exact source of such funds, and this principle applies even if Section 68 is not strictly invoked.

Under Section 68, an assessee is only required to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the immediate creditor or share subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not obligated to establish the 'source of the source' of funds or the creditworthiness of sub-lenders, as this information may not be within the assessee's special knowledge.

To discharge the burden of proof under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, an assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders and the genuineness of the transaction, confirming that the payment was truly made by them.

When explaining cash credits under Section 68, the assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness or financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction. Merely proving identity does not discharge this initial onus, which shifts to the Assessing Officer once these three elements are prima facie proven.

An assessee must explain the source of entries in their account books and prove that the sums are not income; the department is not initially required to prove anything. However, the department cannot unreasonably reject a good explanation, thereby converting valid proof into no proof.

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

For any sum credited in an assessee's books, including share application money, the assessee must prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. Failure to discharge this onus under Section 68 renders the amount taxable.

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

For cash credit additions under Section 68, establishing the 'identity' of a creditor requires more than just producing PAN or assessment particulars; it necessitates demonstrating their actual business operations, place of work, staff, and public recognition. This rigorous standard ensures the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for additions of cash credits found solely in a bank passbook, as a passbook maintained by the bank is not considered a 'book of the assessee' for the purpose of this section, especially when the assessee does not maintain their own books of account.

If an assessee provides the identity, address, PAN, and banking details of shareholders for share capital or application money received through banking channels, the Assessing Officer must conduct a thorough investigation beyond merely issuing unserved summons before making an addition under Section 68.

An increase in a company's subscribed share capital cannot be treated as the company's undisclosed income under section 68, even if the subscribers to the capital are found not to be genuine. The amount of share capital cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the company itself.

Mere non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 does not automatically disprove a transaction, and the Assessing Officer cannot disregard other documentary evidence furnished by the assessee when making additions under Section 68.

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or share application money is not sustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper investigation into the documentary evidence provided by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

For an addition under Section 68 relating to share application money or unsecured loans, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiries and rebut the evidence provided by the assessee regarding identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness; additions cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or without investigation if the assessee has discharged its initial onus.

No addition can be made under section 68 for cash credits if the loan repayment is established in the subsequent year through banking channels, and the assessee has provided sufficient evidence of the creditor's genuineness and creditworthiness.

No addition under section 68 can be made for a loan if the assessee furnishes material proving the identity of the loan givers, demonstrates they are not the beneficial owner, and has repaid the loan in a subsequent year.

An assessee is required to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of a cash credit in their books of accounts, such as an unsecured loan, but is generally not required to prove the source of the source for such credits. Additions under Section 68 are deleted if sufficient proof of creditors, repayment, and TDS on interest is provided.

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the initial burden is on the assessee to establish the authenticity of transactions for unexplained credits. Once authenticity is proven, this burden shifts, and the assessee is not required to prove the genuineness or source of funds of the creditor beyond this.

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

An assessee can explain cash deposits, including those in bank accounts, by demonstrating sufficient cash balance as per their books of account or from previous cash withdrawals. If the explanation is substantiated and the revenue cannot prove otherwise, the source of deposits is deemed proved, precluding additions under Section 68.

An assessee introducing cash credit or capital is not required to prove the ultimate source of funds of the creditor or investor once the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the immediate creditor/investor are established. The assessee's burden is discharged upon providing a satisfactory explanation and producing the person who deposited the amount.

Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee must prima facie prove the identity of creditors, their creditworthiness or capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions to explain any cash credit, including share application money.

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits like share capital or premium cannot be sustained if the assessee provides the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, and the Assessing Officer fails to conduct further enquiries into the 'source of source' or the ultimate source of funds of the investor/creditor.

Amounts received from bogus share transactions, where a private limited company sells shares to unrelated parties at a huge premium and then repurchases them at a loss shortly after, are taxable as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The onus to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such transactions lies solely on the assessee.

When there is a categorical finding that purchases are bogus and from fictitious suppliers, the Assessing Officer is justified in making a 100% addition of the bogus purchase amount under Section 69C, rather than restricting the disallowance to merely the profit margin. This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the assessee's SLP.

When a cash credit is found, the assessee discharges the initial burden by proving the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, shifting the burden to the Revenue. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditor's funds (source of source).

To discharge the onus under Section 68, an assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditor. Merely providing basic documentary evidence or a file number is insufficient; each credit entry requires a separate, detailed explanation.