← 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

Ramdas Singh Tomar, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 1092/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 271ASection 69A

assessee was asked to show cause as to why the cash deposits amounted to Rs. 47,950/- should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. He was also asked to show cause ... cash withdrawal amounting to Rs. 1,10,52,000/- from bank accounts should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee failed to explain the deposits in the bank account corresponding to the withdrawals. Ld. AO also proposed to make

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. K. Mart, Prem Darwaja

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

ITA 1323/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1323/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3) Ahmedabad K. Mart 38, Teliya Mill Compound O/S. Prem Darwaja Ahmedabad – 380 002 बनाम / V/S. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfk 2520 R अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 27.05.2024 Passed For

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

held that for invoking section 69A of the Act, it is essential that the assessee must be found to be the owner of unexplained money. In the absence of evidence establishing ownership or possession, and in the face of categorical denial, the addition cannot be sustained. The appellate authority placed ... hundis in the case of a third party, Shri Pravin S. Shah, and the AO had valid reason to treat the cash loan as unexplained money. The DR, therefore, prayed for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication

ITO-1(1), Gwalior vs. Braj Gopal Gupta, Dabra

In the result, ITA No.246/Agr/2024 & ITA No

ITA 264/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.246/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.247/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.248/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Brajgopal Gupta Ito बनाम/ 54, Harsi Road Gawalior (Mp) Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.264/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Shri Brajgopal Gupta बनाम/ Gawalior (Mp) 54, Harsi Road Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessee remained non-compliant. Left with no option, Ld. AO added cash withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The assessee made cash deposits of Rs.50.30 Lacs which were also added u/s 69A. The assessee earned contractual receipts of Rs.0.30 Lacs against

Brajgopal Gupta, Dabra vs. ITO, Gwalior

In the result, ITA No.246/Agr/2024 & ITA No

ITA 248/AGR/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.246/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.247/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.248/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Brajgopal Gupta Ito बनाम/ 54, Harsi Road Gawalior (Mp) Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.264/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Shri Brajgopal Gupta बनाम/ Gawalior (Mp) 54, Harsi Road Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessee remained non-compliant. Left with no option, Ld. AO added cash withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The assessee made cash deposits of Rs.50.30 Lacs which were also added u/s 69A. The assessee earned contractual receipts of Rs.0.30 Lacs against

Brajgopal Gupt, Dabra vs. It, Gwalior

In the result, ITA No.246/Agr/2024 & ITA No

ITA 247/AGR/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.246/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.247/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.248/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Brajgopal Gupta Ito बनाम/ 54, Harsi Road Gawalior (Mp) Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.264/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Shri Brajgopal Gupta बनाम/ Gawalior (Mp) 54, Harsi Road Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessee remained non-compliant. Left with no option, Ld. AO added cash withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The assessee made cash deposits of Rs.50.30 Lacs which were also added u/s 69A. The assessee earned contractual receipts of Rs.0.30 Lacs against

Brajgopal Gupta, Dabra vs. ITO, Income Tax Departmen

In the result, ITA No.246/Agr/2024 & ITA No

ITA 246/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.246/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.247/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.248/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Brajgopal Gupta Ito बनाम/ 54, Harsi Road Gawalior (Mp) Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.264/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Shri Brajgopal Gupta बनाम/ Gawalior (Mp) 54, Harsi Road Infront Of Sanyas Ashram Vs. Mp 475110 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Armpg-7098-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 271ASection 69A

assessee remained non-compliant. Left with no option, Ld. AO added cash withdrawals of Rs.406.66 Lacs to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. The assessee made cash deposits of Rs.50.30 Lacs which were also added u/s 69A. The assessee earned contractual receipts of Rs.0.30 Lacs against