← 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

Madhavapeddy Sudhakar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 523/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.523/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Madhava Peddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Sudhakar Ward 13(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Agtpm1219J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

relevant credits appearing in his bank account and thus,, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.79,65,164/- as unexplained money taxable u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned ... credits of Page 4 of 8 ITA No 523 of 2024 Madhavapeddy Sudhakar Rs.25,05,164/- in the hands of assessee’s wife as unexplained money. Further, the Assessing Officer had also made addition towards total credits found in the bank account in the hands of the assessee as unexplained

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. Avr Kumbakonam Silver Shop Jewellers, Salem

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.4/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit M/S. Avr Kumbakonam Silver Shop Jewellers बनाम/ Central Circle-3, 364, Jewellers Bazaar Street, Vs. Coimbatore. Salem-636 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfk-1324-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) Ld.AR
Section 115BSection 143(3)

tender and thereby earn huge commission by way of unaccounted sales realization. From this angle also, the aforesaid amount was to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that the deposits were sourced out of cash accumulated ... audited books of the Assessee. The cash deposited in the banks was from the explained source which could not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A without bringing on record any credible evidence / material in support of such allegation. The entire sales of the assessee were supported by the bills