← 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

Krishnan Ravindran, Vellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Vellore

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

ITA 2567/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2567/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishnan Ravindran, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 33,, Perumal Koil Street, Ward 2, Azhinchikuppam, Pudumanai, Tiruvannamalai. Vellore 635 805. [Pan:Bejpr9982J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Gunasekaran, Itp ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Assessing Officer Found The Assessee Deposited Cash Of ₹.15,64,630/- During Demonetization Period. According To The Assessing Officer, The Assessee’S Bank Statements

For Appellant: Shri V. Gunasekaran, ITPFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

filer of income tax return and did not explain the source of cash with supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer treated the credits as unexplained money under section 69A and taxed under section 115BGBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. We find that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

Mrs. Sindhu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-4, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 2548/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2548/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Sindhu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, G 5, Lloyds Colony, Royapettah, Ward 4, Chennai 600 014. Virudhunagar. [Pan:Frqps1612J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.K.V. Sundar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 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 210 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal

For Appellant: Shri R.K.V. Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 69A

credit worthiness and mode of receipts. In the absence of the above details, the Assessing Officer treated the deposits of ₹.37,50,000/- as unexplained money owned by the assessee and brought to tax under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short

Thuthikulam Pacb Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 2544/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2544/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Thuthikulam Pacb Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Thuthikulam, Namakkal 637 409, Ward 2, Tamil Nadu. Namakkal. [Pan: Aadft2362D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Tamilamudhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Noida For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 156 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

For Appellant: Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80(1)

file the details, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 19.12.2019 by treating the credits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. 5. The ld. AR Shri A. Tamilamudhan, CA challenged the exparte order

Krishna Reddy Nalabolu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 607/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.607/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Reddy Nalabolu Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Kodad Suryapet [Pan : Aogpn5115B] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Erred In Assuming That The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.46,89,500/- U/S 69A Of The Act Is Justified.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- during the demonetization period and therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.46,89,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brough to tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order ... decision of ITAT Chennai in the case of Vidhiyasekaran Pradeep Malliraj vs. ITO (supra) has held that cash deposited during the demonetization period is unexplained money, which is taxable u/s 69A of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) should be upheld. 7. We have heard both

Seema Jain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1112/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seema Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Afnpj4732N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading In Jewellery & Also Job Work For Her Customers, Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 12.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,09,720/- The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40Section 69A

total income of Rs.3,41,55,960/- by making addition to the tune of Rs.3,30,90,993/- u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money towards cash deposit and also disallowance of certain expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.13,04,987/-. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment