← 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

Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedra (L/H Babubhai Odedra), Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 915/RJT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.915/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Late Oghadbhai Karabhai Odedara Vs. Income Tax Officer, (L/H Babubhai Oghadbhai Odedara) Ward-2(4), At Bavalvav, Porbandar, Porbandar Gujarat-360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajpo3410B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05/ 03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Appeals) erred in confirming the reassessment. 6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 7,70,000/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money out of total cash deposited in bank account which is from opening cash on hand available with assessee and without considering the documents submitted during ... course of assessee proceedings. 7. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money which is received as Gift from assessee's son out of his income without considering all the relevant documents submitted during the course of appellate proceedings

Pavan Raghumal Wadhwani, Pune vs. CIT NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 316/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.316/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pavan Raghumal Wadhwani, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Bungalow No.30B, Goodwill Tax Department, Nfac, Co-Op. Housing Society, Next Delhi. To Sarjaa Hotel, Iti Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aahpw5645C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubam S. Pednekar Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje : Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Condonation Application Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Present Appeal In Time. Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Shubam S. Pednekar
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

include addition of Rs.2,45,58,000/- under the head “short term 3 capital gains” and also addition of Rs.1,81,76,500/- regarding unexplained money determined u/s 69 of the IT Act. 4. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee