“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

additions amounting to Rs.6,89,67,208/- was made u/s 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposited during the demonetization period as unexplained money. 5.3. As regards to the Ist ground of appeal, I have carefully perused the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated

Uma Shanker Sharma, Vrindavan, Mathura vs. ITO, Ward 2, ITO WD Two, Bharatpur

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

ITA 914/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

further erred in sustaining the best judgment assessment order passed whimsically by the AO treating cash amount of Rs. 12,81,700/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A and deeming it as income of A.Y. 2012- 13, which not taking into consideration the explanation and submissions, treating of cash amount ... unexplained money and deeming it as income of A.Y. 2012-13 and thereby making addition u/s. 69A at Rs. 12,81,700/- are unjust and in the alternative excessive. 4. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) sustaining the addition

Dhanuka Realty Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 202/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 56(1)Section 56(2)

canon of law the issuing of 33000 shares at a premium of Rs. 140 can be called as a 'colorful transaction to introduce unexplained money. A complete list of share holders and directors as on 01/12/2008 and as on 31/03/2009 is enclosed. (h) That from the perusal of above mentioned ... canon of law the issuing of 33000 shares at a premium of Rs. 140 can be called as a 'colorful transaction to introduce unexplained money. A complete list of share holders and directors as on 01/12/2008 and as on 31/03/2009 is enclosed. (h) That from the perusal of above mentioned

Sanjay Khanna, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2288/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 69A

satisfactory. I uphold the addition made by the AO under section 69A as the cash paid towards credit card bills from unexplained sources constitutes unexplained money u/s 69A. 6. From the above it is clear that the assessee had given reason for cash payment out of withdrawal made from

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

assessee and invoking the provisions of section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,20,00,000/- as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. 7. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee made elaborate submissions, based on which the CIT(A) / NFAC

Chandra Shekhar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 863/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

also relied on the show notice issued by the DRI and made an addition of Rs. 52,02,96,462 as unexplained money and Rs.6,77,45,693 as unexplained investment in gold seized by the DRI and a further sum of Rs. 61,95,716 as unexplained income from

Prathamika Krishi Pattina Sahakara Sanga Niyamita Mantur, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

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

ITA 1216/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 68Section 69

assessee in its bank during the demonetization period which represents the value in its bank accounts. Accordingly, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added under section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal ... hands of the assessee was accepted by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Such source of cash deposit has been treated as unexplained money under section 68 of the Act merely on the reasoning that this money was accepted after 8th of November 2016 when such specified banknotes were

Govindappa Pedripad Sushila, Tumakuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1155/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 69A

accepting source of cash as submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore the rest amount was added as unexplained money. However, the ld. FAA has partially accepted after relying on the judgments noted to the extent of Rs.24 lakhs for cash deposits

Sri. Police Gowdru Ramesh, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 1124/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 69A

that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- repressing the cash deposits during the demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. The necessary facts are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and filed ... during the year under consideration, the source of which was not explained by the assessee. Therefore, the AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition made

Smt Chandradevi Gautamchand Jain, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1104/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsmt. Chandra Devi Gautam Chand Jain, Flat No. 1401, Bldg. 5, Raheja Classique Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Behind Infinity Mall, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053 Pan: Aekpc6743G ..... Appellant Vs. Ito-30(1) (2) Room No. 505, C-505, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

from M/s. Runwal Projects Pvt. Ltd. as flat. The amount invested by the assessee received from M/s. Tanya Vincom Pvt. Ltd. was treated as unexplained money u/s. 68 of the Act by the AO and same is added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee being aggrieved with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Manoj Tanwar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3122/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. M. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 45,46,950/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting ... addition of Rs. 45,46,950/- as unexplained money u/s 69A ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to explain and submit any evidence in support of his claim regarding the opening balance as on 01.04.2016 as per cash flow statement submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings

Luv Ranjan, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 3046/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhey Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 69ASection 69C

3042/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in restricting the addition of unexplained money of Rs. 3,62,07,075/- recorded in seized material related to illegal betting to Rs. 12,12,425/-. 2. That the Ld C1T(A) is erred

DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi vs. Luv Ranjan, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 3042/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhey Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 69ASection 69C

Sukhanraj Surajmal Jain, Hubbali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1186/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 69A

that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,10,723/- and 1,62,862/- representing the cash deposit as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the cash available with the assessee ... difference of Rs. 4,10,723/-, the source of which was not explained by the assessee. Therefore, the AO treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Likewise, the AO found that the opening balance of cash as on 8/11/2016 stands

ITO Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad, Sec. Floor Bank House, Near Lakshmi Temple vs. Shri Shivoham Sagar Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Kantharia

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 556/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.556/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-2018 The Income Tax Officer Shri Shivoham Sagar Co-Op. बनाम/ Ward-1(3)(1) Credit Society Ltd. Petlad 388 450 Kantharia, V/S. (Gujarat) At Po Kantharia – 388 307 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 9119 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Umang N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Umang N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80P

demonetized notes after 8.11.2016 in violation of the notifications issued by RBI. Accordingly, he has taken the view that the above said amounts represents unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked ... thus, there The ITO vs. Shri Shivoham Sagar Co-op.Credit Society Ltd. Asst. Year : 2017-2018 6 should be no reason to treat them as unexplained money. We have noted that the AO did not dispute the assessee's claim that the deposited money represented regular business collections from its members

Prabhakar Ramaji Akare, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

deposited by the assessee during the year under Prabhakar Ramaji Akare ITA no.65/Nag./2023 consideration by the assessee and the same was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. As per the assessee, the sum of ` 8 lakh 24/05/2010, in the Bank of India, which the assessee

Prabhakar Ramaji Akare, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Offcer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Raja Babu Nimmaturi, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 701/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

search and also the explanation given by the assessee made addition of Rs.28,06,200/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained money etc., 55. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 56. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that ... withdrawals. Therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made additions of Rs.4,25,15,000/- u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained money. 75. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee stated that

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Ramesh Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 700/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Raja Babu Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 621/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57