← 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

Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2798/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2796 & 2798/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Department. 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opposite Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik- 422101. Pan : Aaqcs3784G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 U/S 271Aac(1) & 21.11.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The It Act Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

determining total income at Rs.1,39,20,235/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.91,275/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs.1,38,28,960/-. Since the assessee furnished first appeal belatedly with a delay of 132 days

Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2796/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2796 & 2798/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Swatantryavir Savarkar Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patanstha Maryadit, Income Tax Department. 1, Javer Bhuvan, Opposite Rathi Sadan, Subnash Road, Nashik Road, Nashik- 422101. Pan : Aaqcs3784G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 U/S 271Aac(1) & 21.11.2024 U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The It Act Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

determining total income at Rs.1,39,20,235/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.91,275/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of Rs.1,38,28,960/-. Since the assessee furnished first appeal belatedly with a delay of 132 days

Shanayaa Industries Private Limited, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 2279/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2279/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shanayaa Industries Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Limited, Tax Department. H.No.1659, Survey No.5, Kirwali Village, Opp. Santosh Hotel, Panvel, Raigarh- 410208. Pan : Aazcs6034L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Matter Had Come Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Adjournment Application Was Filed Despite Due Service Of Notice Of Hearing. From Perusal Of The Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

claimed in the ITR on the part of assesse invite application of section 69A of the Act. The same is reproduced as under: “[69A. Unexplained money, etc.—Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article ... loan and advance given to related entities and creditworthiness of these related entities. Therefore, amount of Rs. 23,26,666/- is considered as unexplained money of the assesseeu/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and added to the total income of the assesse for the A.Y. 2022-23. [Addition:Rs.23

Kalimuthu, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3348/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3348/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalimuthu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Moolakkadai South Thottam, Sokkanur Non Corporate Ward 4, Post, Kinathukadavu (Vil) , Pollachi Coimbatore. Taluk, Coimbatore 642 109. [Pan:Bvjpk6367B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 426 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 144Section 69A

Officer for the claim of agricultural income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act by making addition towards unexplained money of ₹.17,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act and disallowed agricultural income to the extent of ₹.13,00,000/-. On appeal

Dhasaratharaman Gopikrishnan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 3344/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3344/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dhasaratharaman Gopikrishnan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Lakshmi Nagar, Nandhivaram, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Guduvancheri, Kanchipuram 603 202. Tambaram. [Pan:Airpg0033A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 20 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Made By The Assessing Officer Without

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69A

during demonetization period and did not furnish any documentary evidence for the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and brought to tax. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 773/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

assessee on this issue is dismissed. 4.9 As discussed supra, the assessee's ground in respect of 'difference in cash flow statement' treating as unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act is adjudicated as detailed below: i. Addition as per AO's order Rs.1,01,59,959/- ii. Allowed by Ld.CIT

Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 1 (2), Chennai

ITA 772/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 770, 771, 772 & 773/Chny/2020 निर्धा रणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Jayanthi Seeman, C/O. Aparna Nandakumar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, J Nandakumar & Poojesh J (Advocates) No. 6, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Acypj-0739-K] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Assessee By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement V. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl.Cit 20.02.2025 28.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Chennai, All Dated 30.07.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 To 2013-14.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

assessee on this issue is dismissed. 4.9 As discussed supra, the assessee's ground in respect of 'difference in cash flow statement' treating as unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act is adjudicated as detailed below: i. Addition as per AO's order Rs.1,01,59,959/- ii. Allowed by Ld.CIT