← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Icnome Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

ITA 1102/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle-2(2) Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 2 आदेश / Order Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 To 2017-18 Arises Out Of A Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 04-08-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.153A Of The Act Dated 29-09-2021. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री एबी टी

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1101/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

contents narrated in the loose sheet and the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act on 06-02-2020, made the addition of unexplained money invoking the provisions of Sec.69 on the presumption that the assessee had actually incurred the expenditure as per the narration made in the loose

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1100/CHNY/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

contents narrated in the loose sheet and the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act on 06-02-2020, made the addition of unexplained money invoking the provisions of Sec.69 on the presumption that the assessee had actually incurred the expenditure as per the narration made in the loose

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

ITA 1099/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle-2(2) Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 2 आदेश / Order Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 To 2017-18 Arises Out Of A Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 04-08-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.153A Of The Act Dated 29-09-2021. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ चेन्नई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय श्री एबी टी

Smt. Sumati Sathish Khanderai, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hassan

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

ITA 2014/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Sumati Sathish Khanderai, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 372, Main Road, Belur, Ward – 2, Hassan – 573 115. Hassan. Pan : Blaps 3596 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067756232(1)] Dated 20.08.2024. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That A Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 01.12.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee Calling To File Income Tax Return For Assessment Year 2017-18 By 31.12.2017. During The Demonetization Period, Assessee Deposited Cash Of Rs.97,80,040/- Into Her Bank Account. The Ao Issued Notices But The Assessee Did Not Respond The Notices. The Ao Issued Show Cause Notice On 17.09.2019 Proposing To Complete The Assessment Under Section 144 Of The Act & Assessee Was Given Time Till 23.09.2019. In Response, The Assessee Appeared On Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

Rs.8,59,500/- in Specified Bank Notes ( SBNs). Hence, the sum of Rs.8,59,500/- deposited in SBNs is held as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.25,85,512/- (Rs.17,26,012 + Rs.8,59,500). 4. Aggrieved

Hukam Singh Negi, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Rampur, Himachal Pradesh

ITA 673/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 673/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hukam Singh Negi, Vs. Ito, बनाम Village Sungra Nichar, Rampur, Kinnaur 172115 Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abupn3680Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. M.R. Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav Vp: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Dated 19.4.2024 Passed For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3,13,000/- Which Was Added By The Assessing Officer With The Aid Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act').

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 68

Punjab National Bank. The Assessing Officer was of the view that these deposits were made during the demonetization period, then this be treated as unexplained money of the Assessee. 4. Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief because the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal