“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

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1576/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1573, 1574, 1575 & 1576/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Shantilal R Patel, Income Tax Officer, 1, Shriji Park, बनाम Ward-1, Vs. Lunawada Vardhari Road, Lunawada. Lunawada, Panchmahal-389230. Pan: Akbpp6276G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mk Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N J Vyas, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

shares from the Trustee, the AO also made addition of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, treated the same as cash/non-cash deposits as unexplained money. 7. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1575/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1574/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1573/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

Mahendrakumar Prahladbhai Vaghela, Mansa vs. ITO (Int. Txn)-1 - Ahmedabad, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1297/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar(Now Hon’Ble) & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,15,000 as unexplained Money u/s 69A. 3.2. That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs. 15,15,000 as unexplained Money u/s 69A.” 3. The brief facts ... lower authorities that cash available with assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose, cash so deposited could not be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. In the case of Jaspal Singh Sehgal 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai - Trib.), where the assessee submitted detailed cash summary

Maddi Sudrashan Rao, Chilakauripet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Guntur

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

ITA 248/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri S. Balakrishnan

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. AparnaVilluri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

observed that since the assessee has deposited SBNs in excess of opening balance amounting to Rs. 87,89,273/-, the same is treated as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and taxed the same U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the learned AO determined the total income ... submissions, considering the facts of the case and position of law, the learned AO was justified in making addition of Rs.87,89,273/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Page 2 of 5 Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and passed

Nayasundari Subbanagounder Rajeshvarri, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1184/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1184/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Nayasundari Subbanagounder Vs. The Income Officer, Rajeshvarri, Non Corporate Ward 2(5) No.1/111, Anna Nagar, Coimbatore Neelambur Post, Coimbatore 641 004. [Pan: Anipr 3851K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Assessing Officer determined total income of the appellant at Rs. 14,64,270/- after making the addition of Rs. 10,68,500/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee raised an objection in taking

Shantirani Samarathamal Dagriya, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-34 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3467/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 142Section 144Section 234ASection 234FSection 271ASection 69A

before the assessing officer, assessment order was passed under section 144 of the act, making addition of ₹10,07,000/- under section 69A as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Upon

DCIT CC - 6(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Naresh Bhavanji Chheda, Mumbai

ITA 2999/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 69A

opportunity with the observation that relevant evidences have already been confronted with the assessee. Accordingly, the AO assessed the sum of Rs.46.24 crores as unexplained money (investment) u/s 69A of the Act. b. Addition based on Statement of Shri Ashish Chhangani:- This person also belongs to Rucha Group ... payments as mentioned in the document seized from the phone of Shri Ashish Chhangani. Accordingly, he assessed the sum of Rs.1.00 crore as unexplained money (investment) u/s 69A of the Act. c. Addition based on the Statement of Shri Javed Shaikh:- This person also belongs to Rucha group. During

Naresh Bhavanji Chheda, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2607/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapadia &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 69A

DE vs. Hardha Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbaivs.ITO 9 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 257/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

relevant M/s Dev Sharda Developers P. Ltd. documents and cooperate with the assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. Addition of Rs.4,50,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act 8. The AO noticed from the impounded documents, that the assessee has given loan ofRs.4 ... money and since the amount was not recorded in the books of accounts, the AO treated the sum of Rs.4,50,000 as "unexplained money" under section 69A of the Act. In the absence of any supporting evidences the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this

DE vs. Hardha Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbaivs.ITO 9 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 256/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

DE vs. Harda Developers P. Ltd, Mumbaivs.ITO 9(1)3, Mumbai

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

ITA 8070/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

Dev Sharda Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 9(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4727/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

Sangeeta Pandey, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-1(4), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sangeeta Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer House No.88, Majra Andandlok-Ii Ward 1(4) Ganeshpur, Rashmanpur Lucknow - New Chinhat, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bqepp1354H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income. The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Various Details Required For Completing The Assessment. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao, Therefore, Proceeded To Complete The Assessment Under

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

that there were cash deposits to the tune of Rs.33,00,500/- during the year under consideration. The AO treated the cash deposits as unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE

Devidas Suryawanshi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 696/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Babu KN, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 69A

assessment order was passed on 10.01.2024 by making addition of Rs.62,22,750/- under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money, Rs.6,236/- with regard to interest earned in bank account but not admitted as income and Rs.1,50,000/- with regard to deduction claimed under Chapter

Ram Gopal Varma Penumatsa, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward- 14(1), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1097/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha .G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary(Through Virtual Hearing) आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 1097/Hyd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ram Gopal Varma Income Tax Officer, Penumatsa, Vs. Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. [Pan : Agfpp4793C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. Naveen Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 37Section 69A

currency notes as on 31/12/2016 and therefore, the learned AO treated the said sum of Rs. 1,26,000/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, on verifica"on of the Profit & Loss Account of the assessee

Bhairablana Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Vill- Hatbele, Post- Hatbele vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 61/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Abhishek Kumar, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

which the returns were filed for the earlier and subsequent AYs. The provisions of Section 69A of the Act are 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

Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -19(6), Chennai vs. Smt. Kavitha Subbrarayalu, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 1277/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

form 35. Ground 1 to 08 are simply against the addition of Rs 2,41,95,000/- u/s 69A of the Act being the unexplained money. 5.1 Now in the proceedings before me the appellant in order to substantiate the claim has filed written submissions. The appellant during the appellate

Parthasarathy Ariraman, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward 3, Cuddalore

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

ITA 1192/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 69

action of the Ld.CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs.20 lakhs being the deposit/cash withdrawals of sale proceeds as added by the AO as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 8. As discussed supra, this issue is interconnected viz., according to assessee, Rs.20 lakhs cash which has been withdrawn from