← All Phrases

“unexplained money”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69ASection 69A5,888 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained money is (Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 696 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained money

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

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.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.
342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court
658
citing judgments

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.

Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT
50 ITR 1 · 1963 · Supreme Court
581
citing judgments

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.

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT
37 ITR 288 · 1959 · Supreme Court
570
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

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.

Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT
107 ITR 938 · 1977 · Supreme Court
477
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd.
208 ITR 465 · 1994 · High Court
427
citing judgments

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.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

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.

Judgments citing unexplained money

Gopalan Nair Sajan, Pala vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kottayam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and that of SA is dismissed

ITA 490/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Stay Application No. 68/Coch/2025 & Gopalan Nair Sajan .......... Appellant Ashok Tradelines, P.P. Road, Palai [Pan: Ahypg 0629 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1, Kottayam. Appellant By: Shri Paulson K P, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual, Engaged In The Proprietorship Business As Distributor For Supreme

For Appellant: Shri Paulson K P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148

While doing so, the AO brought to tax the cash deposits made in the IDBI bank of Rs. 5,31,20,260/- as unexplained money of the appellant rejecting the explanation of the assessee that cash deposits were out of withdrawal made from State Bank of India (SBI) by holding ... consideration is whether NFAC was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,31,20,260/- being cash deposits made in IDBI bank as unexplained money of the appellant. There is no dispute about the fact that cash deposits made in the IDBI bank account, however, the appellant offered

Geetha Selvam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1319/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1319/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Geetha Selvam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.28, Sengundram, Anna Street, Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Redhills, Chennai 600 052. Chennai. [Pan:Avjpg1070A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 249 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69

short] has been completed without making any addition, but, however, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit of ₹.34,20,360/- as unexplained money under section 69 of the Act. We find no computation of income made to that effect. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer included the computation sheet