← 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

Jignesh Shah, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1837/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1837/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Jignesh Shah, D-604, Indraprastha Apartment Near Maheshwari Bhawan City Light Road, Surat - 395 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agyps 8575 Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Assessee By : Revenue By : Shrti Mehul Shah, Ar Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: The Asst.Cit बनाम Circle-1 / V/S. Bhavnagar (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) : 30/01/2025 : 06/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23/08/2024, Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Sections 69A & 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2022-23.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shrti Mehul Shah, AR
Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

Bank Ltd. were claimed to have originated from earlier withdrawals, but no clear reconciliation was provided, leading the AO to treat them as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Similarly, the credit card payments of Rs.3,74,148/- were initially proposed for addition at Rs.21,54,879/- based ... efforts to substantiate the transactions. Given the lack of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditors, the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Consequently, the assessed income was determined at Rs.18,53,82,870/-. ITA No.1837/Ahd/2024 Jignesh vs. The Asst.CIT Asst

Income Tax Officer, Nagercoil vs. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy, Nagercoil

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2893/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2893/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy बनाम/ Ward-1, 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Vs. Nagercoil Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Djtpm-5698-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.18/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.2893/Chny/2024) (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Smt. Mahalakshmi Ramasamy Ito, बनाम/ 3/3B3, Vathiyarvillai, Ward-1, Vs. Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram-629 001. Nagercoil. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Djtpm-5698-P (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri M. Sundar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Sundar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

erred in deleting the addition made towards cash deposits of Rs.1,38,57,250/- by treating the same as unexplained money u/s.69A. (3) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence, without granting opportunity to the Assessing Officer, in violation of the provisions of Rule

Mr. Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2775/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2775/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Goopalliappa Narasimhaiah, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/150, Avalapalli (Village & Post), Vs. Ward 1, Hosur – 635 109. Hosur. Pan: Afjpn 2116A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) & Shri D.C. Koushick, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)/Nfac’S Order Dated 03.09.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,50,000/- U/S.69A R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

view of the above a sum of Rs. 88,50,000/- deposited in cash in the bank accounts of the assessee, is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r.w.s 115BBE of the income tax act, 1961. In view of this penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamath, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

ITA 110/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 110/Pan/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vishwanath Venkatesh Kamat Pb Road, Kolhapur Cross, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum. Pan : Adcpk7548Q . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045183404(1) Dt. 05/09/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Best Judgement Assessment Order Dt. 25/12/2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 253(1)Section 44ASection 69A

110/PAN/2022 AY: 2017-18 ₹36,50,952/- as profit estimated @4% of business turnover and (b) ₹4,73,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act out of SBN deposits made.. 4. The assessee impugned the aforestated additions in first appeal before Ld. NFAC. Without disturbing