← 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

Rajshri Vishnu Wagh, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1105/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajshri Vishnu Wagh, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Nashik. Maruti Chowk, A/P Ambe Dindori, Janori, Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nashik- 422206. Pan : Adopw7595D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.05.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A) May Please Be Set Aside As The Same Is Passed Ex Parte & Without Discussing The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 69Section 69A

Rs.1,00,000/- made during the demonetization period with supporting 5 documentary evidence, therefore, the cash deposits of Rs.1,00,000/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessment order dated 16.12.2019 was passed ... Assessing Officer on the basis of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- transferred to Shri B. T. Sonawane on 02.07.2018 treated the same payment as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. We find that in the Financial Year 2009-10 the assessee received an amount of Rs.1

DCIT, Circle-2, Durgapur vs. Kalyan Educational Society, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the 18

ITA 1176/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ………. Appellant Vs. Kalyan Educational Society ………… Respondent 13, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. (Pan: Aabtk2860K) & C.O. No. 03/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalyan Educational Society ………… Cross Objector Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ……….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Revenue Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For Assessee/Cross Objector. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 10.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

explain the alleged deposit of Rs.16,04,250/-. We notice that the Ld. AO had invoked section 69A of the Act for the unexplained money but the said section is applicable if the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other articles which