“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

Vinodbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appellate order is hereby set aside with the direction to hear the appeal on merits by giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee

ITA 1004/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

sales of Dairy Products thereby the Assessing Officer held that the amount of Rs.42,97,253/- was not explained and therefore added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before

Reshma, Nalgonda vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nalgonda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for sta"s"cal purposes

ITA 982/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohd Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271A

account, the learned AO invoked the provisions of sec"on 69A of the Act and made addi"on of Rs. 67,52,140/- as unexplained money. Thus, the Ld. AO determined the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 67,52,140/- and passed the assessment order U/s. 147 r.w.s

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.463 & 464/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Keshava Reddy Nagireddy Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adcpn1614N] Circle (1) Kurnool (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/11/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 05/03/2024, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15 & 2015-16. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

assessment ex-parte to the best of his judgement u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of (i) Rs.13,83,65,127/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited in his bank account

Keshava Reddy Nagireddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (1), Kurnool

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: M.Chandramouleswara Rao,ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

Smriti Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1224/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Smriti Jaiswal,…………………………..…………Appellant Flat 33, 86 Prince Golam Hossain Street, Kolkata-700032 [Pan:Afdpj6962N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-33(2), Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Sankar Lal Poddar, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 28, 2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

determining the total income at Rs.33,35,710/-. The ld. Assessing Officer made three additions- (i) Cash deposits in Bank Account treated as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE; (ii) Income from business taken by applying Gross Profit rate 8% on total sales of Rs.2 ... Learned Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the cash deposited in bank account during demonetization period as unexplained money and thereby applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax, 1961. (3) In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned

Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

observed as under:- Extract from headnotes Section 69A, read with sections 144A and 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash)- Assessment year 2019-20-Pursuant to cash seized 15 MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARRAF VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 JAIPUR at premises of employee of a trust

Sh. Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1067/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

alleging the profit earned by assessee on trading of shares in normal course of business as fictitious profit and thereby holding the same as unexplained money. Appellant prays that the assessee is engaged in share trading business for past many years and the profit of Rs.5 ... grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.74,51,800/- made by ld. AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of Unexplained money, arbitrarily. 3.1. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.74,51,800/- made by ld. AO on the basis

Babu Sahab, Sandur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hosapete

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Babu Sahab, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Deogiri Post Sandur Tq, Ward –2, Bellary Dist. – 583 112. Hosapete. Pan : Aqqps 2313 J Appellant Respondent Respondent By : Shri. Shiv Prasad Reddy, Ar Appellant By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024 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/250/2023-24/1061565361(1)].

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for RevenueFor Respondent: Shri. Shiv Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

given to the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 of the Act and assessed the entire cash deposit as unexplained money and added the same under section 69A of the Act and applied special rate of tax under section 115BBE of the Act, and completed

Nirmal M Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO. Ward-25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for 10

ITA 3952/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

144B of the Act and assessment order was passed on 25.05.2023, making the addition of Rs. 5,13,29,17,743/- as an unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal against the assessment order before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal

Pradeep Kumar Gandhi, Uttar Pradesh vs. Ward 1(2)(1) Meerut, Meerut

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2757/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 69A

perusal of the assessee’s pleadings and both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings indicates that an addition u/s 69A as unexplained money of Rs. 12,41,500/- has been made in his hands in section 144 assessment framed on 27.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. The assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Noida, Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 2276/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

advanced earlier from unexplained sources lay heavily on the assessee in view of the fact that the cash of Rs. 2 Cr. represented unexplained money which was not recorded in books and also due to fact that the transaction of acceptance of cash and repayment in connection in with transfer

DCIT Central Circle-I, Greater Noida vs. Sanjay Singh, Noida

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and C

ITA 6942/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 69A

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nagapattinam vs. Balasundaram Rajaraman Thiruneelakandan, Sirkali

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1391/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1391/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Balasundaram Rajaraman Ward 1, Thiruneelakandan, Nagapattinam. No.78/37, Pulugapet New Street, Sirkali, Nagapattinam 609 110. [Pan Aqspt 1712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl. Cit. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

total assessed income at Rs.2,22,50,499/- by making additions/disallowances as under:- Sl.No Nature of Addition/Disallowance Amount in Rs. 1 On account of unexplained money u/s 69A 2,20,38,000/- 2 On account of profit as 8% of non-cash credits 2,12,499/- Totaling

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 464/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

case the cash loan given is not taxed, the money in the form of cash loan received is taxable being unexplained credits u/s 68/ unexplained money u/s 69A). Accordingly, the appellant gets partial relief in these above terms. (VIII) Rotation of the Funds: Subsequent advances from the loan repayment received ... found that the same is out of the undisclosed cash of such assessee in that case the same will also be taxable as unexplained money. In the above simplified scenario the total investment in the form of loan given of Rs. 390 lakhs can also be taxed u/s 69 instead

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 463/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 462/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur, Income Tax Department vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 427/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

Chandra Mohan Badaya, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

ITA 423/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri S. L. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 69

Sri. Marala Reddy Sreenivas, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1951/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified. in upholding the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- made as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, being the cash found and seized during the course of search under the facts and in the circumstances ... However, as the assessee failed to substantiate the source for the cash seized, the cash seized amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and the AO concluded the assessment by making total addition of Rs.22,50,000/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order

Rajashthani Rawal Brahman Samaj Vikas Mandal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Income Tax Dept, Mumbai

ITA 3416/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rajasthani Rawal Brahman Samaj Commissioner Of Income Tax Vikas Mandal (Appeals) Income Tax Dept. Nfac 17, Om Shree Sai Darshan, Kailash Income Tax Officer, Circle 3, Vs. Nagar, Koper Cross Road, Opp. Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421306. Sakharam Complex, Dombivali (W), Thane – 421202. Pan/Gir No. Aacar 9376 B (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri. R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

explained, leave alone satisfactory explanation, Further, for invoking deeming provisions under Section 69A of the act, there should be clearly identifiable asset or unexplained Money. It is amply proved beyond doubt that the assessee has deposited Cash and other Credits appearing in bank accounts stands unexplained