← 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

Shobha Suman Mishra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

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

ITA 576/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.576/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shobha Suman Mishra 5/6, B Block, Keshav Marg, Panchsheel, Ajmer-305 001 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 2(2) Ajmer प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS7545N निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69A

well as on facts of the case by confirming addition of Rs. 7,10,250/-, by treating the amount deposited by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal (supra), it is noticed that the ld . CIT(A) passed ... well as on facts of the case by confirming addition of Rs. 7,10,250/-, by treating the amount deposited by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Submission: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment Order that the assessee

Fayyaz Ahmad, Nizampur, Tauru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bhiwadi

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

ITA 574/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 574/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2011-12 Shri Fayyaz Ahmad 22, Niazampur, Tauru, Gurgaon बनाम The ITO, Vs. Ward-Bhiwadi अपीलार्थी / Appellant Haryana - 122105 Alwar स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIOPA 8272 G प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Priyam Agarwal, Advocate Shri Shubhendra Singh Deep, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Gautam

For Appellant: Shri Priyam Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

this has been filed, either before the AO or during the present appeal proceedings. Hence the cash deposited in the bank account represents unexplained money and the same is taxable u/s 69A. The addition of Rs. 13,57,550/- u/s 69A is hereby confirmed and ground no. 4 is dismissed ... before him and he treated the cash deposited amounting to Rs.13,57,550/- in the bank FAYYAZ AHMAD VSVS ITO, WARD -BHIWADI account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. From the available records, it is noticed that the assessee is ex-parte before the AO and also before

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

deposits of Rs. 8,85,500/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained money under head Income from Other Sources. 3.2 During the assessment proceedings the assessee suo-moto vide reply filed on 22.06.2019 submitted that ... considered the source of cash of Rs. 14,00,000/- and balance cash amount of Rs. 8,85,500/- was considered as unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the Act. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he did not find any merit

Ramasamy Rajendran, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.817 & 818/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ramasamy Rajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/43C, Kollipatti, Reddipatti, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 002. Namakkal. [Pan:Aswpr5141F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

income or any details or explanation furnished towards the cash deposits. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ₹.18,57,102/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Ramasamy Rajendran, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.817 & 818/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ramasamy Rajendran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/43C, Kollipatti, Reddipatti, Ward 1, Namakkal 637 002. Namakkal. [Pan:Aswpr5141F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri Tamil Amudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

income or any details or explanation furnished towards the cash deposits. Thus, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ₹.18,57,102/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before