← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. No 1 Auto Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 656/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

explanation and reconciliation furnished, proceeded to treat the entire amount of Rs.1,10,10,000/- found and seized at the business premises as unexplained money. Consequently, an addition of Rs.1,10,10,000/- was made substantively in the hands of M/s. No.1 Auto Finance and protectively in the hands ... appellant firm for the AY 2018-19. In view of this, out of addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made as unexplained money a sum of Rs. 5,34,732/- is hereby sustained. Accordingly, all the grounds raised upon this issue are hereby treated as partly allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 633/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

explanation and reconciliation furnished, proceeded to treat the entire amount of Rs.1,10,10,000/- found and seized at the business premises as unexplained money. Consequently, an addition of Rs.1,10,10,000/- was made substantively in the hands of M/s. No.1 Auto Finance and protectively in the hands ... appellant firm for the AY 2018-19. In view of this, out of addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made as unexplained money a sum of Rs. 5,34,732/- is hereby sustained. Accordingly, all the grounds raised upon this issue are hereby treated as partly allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 622/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

explanation and reconciliation furnished, proceeded to treat the entire amount of Rs.1,10,10,000/- found and seized at the business premises as unexplained money. Consequently, an addition of Rs.1,10,10,000/- was made substantively in the hands of M/s. No.1 Auto Finance and protectively in the hands ... appellant firm for the AY 2018-19. In view of this, out of addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- made as unexplained money a sum of Rs. 5,34,732/- is hereby sustained. Accordingly, all the grounds raised upon this issue are hereby treated as partly allowed

Manoj Kumar, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, Gaya

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Patna05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.75/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Manoj Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Chawal Bazar, Main Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824143. [Pan: Andpk2914K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Aurangabad……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 5, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2021-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 Declaring Total Income Of ₹ 5,54,350. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Under Section 143(2) & Section 142(1) Of The

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 69A

assessed the total income at ₹63,24,490 after making the following additions: 1. ₹53,23,337 under Section 69A of the Act as unexplained money, allegedly deposited in cash. 2. ₹4,46,800, estimated at 12% gross profit on alleged business turnover. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order

Smita Subhash Mehta, Ratnagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 1108/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smita Subhash Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Pitruchaya, Teen Batti Naka, Khed, Ratnagiri- 415709. Pan : Ankpm7084P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anup Bipin Shaha Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act & The Same Is Based On Surmise & Guesswork. The Addition Be Deleted & The Appellant Be Given Just & Due Relief. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & The Ld. Ao Erred In Making The Addition Of Rs.1,50,79,576/- Under Section 69A Of The Act Without Considering The Appellant'S Response That The Deposits In The Impugned Account Are Already Accounted For In Her

For Appellant: Shri Anup Bipin ShahaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

revenue, the same (amount of Rs. 1,50,79,576/- including cash deposit of Rs. 1,31,48,016) is therefore treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Provision of section 69A of the Act is reproduced as under which is applicable in the case of the assessee ... Unexplained money u/s 69A "69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money. bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery TAX DEPARTMEN or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. K S Palanisamy, Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

Pavuna Sundari, CIT has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erroneously deleted the additions made towards undisclosed income of ₹.2,00,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, which was found in the materials seized from the premises of M/s. SRS Mining, Chennai on the ground

Neelima Gahlot, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Faridabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3092/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18) Neelima Gahlot, Legal Heir Late Shri Attar Singh Rajput, House No. 925A, Sector-29, Faridabad, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Haryana 121008 Pan: Acjpr-9365-E बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Faridabad, Haryana 122001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Venketesh Chaurasia, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 28.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Is Against The Addition Of Rs.15,14,000/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) As Unexplained Money Deposited In Bank & Confirmed By The Cit(A). 3. Shri Venketesh Chaurasia, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Assessee Has Died On 01.05.2022 (A Copy Of His Death

For Appellant: Shri Venketesh Chaurasia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 68

appeal is against the addition of Rs.15,14,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as unexplained money deposited in bank and confirmed by the CIT(A). 3. Shri Venketesh Chaurasia, appearing on behalf of the assessee at the outset submitted that