← 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

Siddireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Kadiyam Mandal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.326/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Siddireddy Veera Venkata Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Satyanarayana Murthy, Ward-2(3), Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry. East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-533126. Pan: Bpaps5187Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 23/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna, Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Acres. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added the balance of Rs. 14,09,178/- [Rs. 26,51,178 – Rs. 12,42,000] as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. Further, the Ld.AO in the absence of any explanation / evidence, brought to tax the peak credits arrived ... ICICI Bank and Canara Bank respectively and made the addition as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act. Thus, the Ld AO completed the assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act and passed the assessment order dated 30/12/2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred

M/S. Nellai Krishna Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 2142/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2142/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Nellai Krishna Construction Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 10, Flat-C-1, Corporate Ward 4(2), Pillayar Koil Street, Poonamallee, Chennai. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Aaecn7186R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

emanates for consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 5. We note that the assessee is company, engaged in the business

Deepak Ramchand Raheja, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1787/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Ramchand Raheja, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, A-11, Garden City Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(2), 318, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaepr5387D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Of ₹.14,45,000/-.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 69A

balance has been shown in asset column in the return of income and accordingly, proceeded to add the said cash deposit on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by giving benefit of ₹.5.00 lakhs of earlier cash balance

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

source of agricultural income towards cash deposits made to the assessee’s bank account and made an addition of Rs.5,07,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69C of the Act. Further, the AO also added an interest of Rs.39,624/- on fixed deposit, which was not shown by the assessee

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

source of agricultural income towards cash deposits made to the assessee’s bank account and made an addition of Rs.5,07,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69C of the Act. Further, the AO also added an interest of Rs.39,624/- on fixed deposit, which was not shown by the assessee

Mohammad Farooque Abdul Majeed, Malegaon vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Malegaon.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1182/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Farooque V The Assistant Commissioner Abdul Majeed, S Of Income Tax, Circle Coop Industrial Compound, Malegaon, Malegaon. Quadwai Road, At Post – Malegaon, Dist, Nashik – 423203. Pan : Aaqpm7490N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 08/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 13.09.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition To The Extent Of Rs. 34,30,812/- On Account Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account.

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

justified in confirming the addition of Rs.34,30,812/- by treating the said cash deposits as unexplained money, when the complete details of asset, liabilities and expenses, etc. are provided in the form of Audited Financial Statement, which are not rejected by the AO. 2 5. On the basis