← 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

Rajiv Dasgupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 237/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajiv Dasgupta….…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 4Th Floor, Olisha Realty, 4, Government Place, Bbd Bagh, Kol-1. [Pan: Caipd1936N] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhisek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri B. K. Singh, Jcit (Sr. Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Arbitrary, Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. For That The Ld. C.It (A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal In Haste Without Considering The Submission Of The Assessee & Going Through The Merits Of The Case. 3. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Is Bad In Law Since The Order Passed Is Not Any Speaking Order Nor The Cit (A) Has Looked Into The Assessment Records

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

assessing entire deposits in bank account aggregating Rs. 2,52,12,617 /- made during the financial year 2016-17 as unexplained money in spite of the fact that the assessee ignoring the debit entries. 5. For that even otherwise the Ld. A0 & Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Shri.N.Anbalagan, Pudukottai

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

ITA 344/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.344/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri N. Anbalagan, Income Tax, Central Circle -2, 115, Pudukkottai Road, No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai 614 624. Trichy 620 001. [Pan: Aixpa4585F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 144ASection 69A

Officer, in terms of the directions of the JCIT, completed the assessment by making addition on account of cash deposits treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), based on the detailed working of peak credit, restricted the addition to an extent ... Assessing Officer has made the addition amounting to Rs. 5.82,38,126/- which is being the cash deposit made by the appellant, as unexplained money as per the provisions of Sec. 69A of the Act. 9.2 While completing the assessment, the AO has not considered the withdrawals from the bunk