← 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

Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 751/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

unsubstantiated and therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.11,11,25,076/- u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the LD.CIT ... year under consideration. However, deviated from the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, in respect of the addition made towards cash deposits, as unexplained money and after considering relevant facts, observed that, the assessee has credited its unaccounted sales in the bank account and therefore, by taking into account

Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 750/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

unsubstantiated and therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.11,11,25,076/- u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the LD.CIT ... year under consideration. However, deviated from the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, in respect of the addition made towards cash deposits, as unexplained money and after considering relevant facts, observed that, the assessee has credited its unaccounted sales in the bank account and therefore, by taking into account

ITO., Ward -6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

unsubstantiated and therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.11,11,25,076/- u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained money and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the LD.CIT ... year under consideration. However, deviated from the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, in respect of the addition made towards cash deposits, as unexplained money and after considering relevant facts, observed that, the assessee has credited its unaccounted sales in the bank account and therefore, by taking into account

Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 132/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurav Goel, Vs. The Ito, बनाम H. No. 1676, Sector 33-D, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahgpg3162Q अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

After due examination of submissions filed by the Assessee and inquires the ld. A.O. made the following assessment which are detailed as under:- 2.6 Unexplained money post demonetization: That during the post demonetization period i.e. from 9.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 from the bank account statement of the Assessee it has been ... having sustained an addition of Rs.53,21,162/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, treating the same as unexplained money. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC has erred in having passed a very sketchy order without

Kasanagottu Santhosh Kumar, Siddipet, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Siddipet

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

ITA 1287/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1287/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Kasanagottu Santosh Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Vs. Ward-1, Siddipet. Pan:Aqpppk0048K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri Sai Keerthana, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/02/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Kasanagottu Santhosh Kumar (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 26.06.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Was A Delay Of 103 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Itat. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Along With Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay Which Is To The Following Effect :

For Appellant: Sri Sai Keerthana, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 253(3)

prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the cash deposits made by the assessee of Rs.1,21,02,252/- as unexplained money in the bank account of the assessee without appreciating the fact of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

Mr. Sellaiah Arumugam, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 7(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2425/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.: 2425/Chny/2024 िनधा" रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shri Sellaiah Arumugam Dcit 2/4, Spartan Nagar, V. Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Mogappair Centre, Chennai. Mogappair So , Tiruvallur -600 037. [Pan:Agjpa-0084-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. P.M.Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Mr. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

convinced with the statements furnished by the assessee, made an addition of Rs.24,20,000/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money along with additions of Rs.10,70,421/- and Rs.37,967/- by passing an order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22.12.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment ... assessment proceedings. In spite of furnishing the above documents, the AO not satisfied with the same, has made addition u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money, which is against the conditions laid down by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the orders of the AO as well

Dy. CIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rkr Gold Pvt Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 10/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Rkr Gold Pvt Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 169, T.V. Samy Road West, Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore South, Corporate Circle-1, Aayakar Coimbatore – 641 002. Bhavan, [Pan: Aadcr-4414-M] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri.R.Clement Ramesh, Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

sell the same to retail jewellers and hence made an addition of total cash deposits of Rs.16,64,18,000/- to income as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 by holding as under: “2.6 As laid ... explained from fictitious sales of Rs. 16,77,06,483/- is brought to tax as unexplained money u/s.69A and charged to tax u/s 115BBE of :-6-: ITA. No: 10/Chny/2023 the IT Act 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is initiated separately. 3.0 Since the cash sales amounting