← 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

Alagarsamy, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 315/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 315/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Alagarsamy, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Anumantharayan Kottai, Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 001, Ward -1, Tamil Nadu. Dindigul. [Pan: Biqpa-6564-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana Advocate ""थ"की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 22.06.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 153 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition 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 Prevented In :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 250Section 69A

absence of any response to the notices issued by treating the cash deposits of ₹.1,28,15,219/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want

Kunguman Ganeshan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(3), Chennai

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

ITA 295/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 295/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kunguman Ganeshan, Income Tax Officer, 22/59, Mohammed Hussain Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -11(3), Royapettah S.O., Royapettah, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 014. [Pan: Bgqpg-5503-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.03.2025 : घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.11.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

Since there was no response/reply from the assessee and the deposits remain unexplained, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained money under the provisions of section 69A of the Act and assessed the income of the assessee under “income from other sources”. 4. The assessee carried the matter

Jayanthi Rajagounder, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3146/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3146/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Jayanthi Rajagounder, The Income Tax Officer, No.F-1, First Floor, V. Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Seenivasam Flat No.9, Chennai - 34. Durairaj Street, Palavanthangal, Chennai – 600 061. [Pan:Ahspj 9904F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K.B. Muralidharan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 69A

Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that merely because cash is deposited into the bank account of the appellant, it cannot be added as unexplained money u/ s.69A 11. For that the Assessing Officer erred in adding the cash deposits made in that of appellant's account during the demonetisation period ... unexplained money u/ s.69A in the hands of the appellant when it belonged to her husband's transactions. 12. For that the Assessing Officer did not bring out any material to state that the cash deposits made by the appellant during the demonetisation period should be brought u/s.69A as unexplained

Sree Balaji Bullions, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2302/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Balaji Bullions, Dy. Commissioner Of 22/43, Vasagasalai, Income Tax, Shevapet, V. Circle 1(1), Salem– 636002. Salem. [Pan: Aasfs-5947-E] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : Shri.S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By & N.Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

addition to the tune of Rs.3,73,28,680/- being the cash deposits in SBNs during demonetization period from 09,11.2016 to 15.11.2016 as unexplained money in terms of Section 69A in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The NFAC, Delhi to appreciate ... Delhi failed to appreciate that having not examined the books of accounts which were made available at every stage of proceedings, the presumption of unexplained money should be reckoned as wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 6. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that having not rejected the financial

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Ajay Bakliwal, Kota

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in

ITA 1413/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1413/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 ACIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Ajay Bakliwal C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Bari, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearin

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee is not reliable. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- out of total cash found Rs. 32,75,000/- is considered unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69A and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act. 3.3 During ... raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: The addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. “6.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings