“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

Late Smt. Mariam Bai (Through Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Chara), Indore (M.P.) vs. The Income-Tax Officer - 4(3), Indore, Indore (M.P.)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 249/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Mariam Bai (Through Income Tax Officer 4(3), Legal Heir Shri Abdul Razak Indore Chara), Vs. 12, Daulaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Advpc5505A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI

Sh. Kesar Kadir Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 372/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 69A

bank interest amount at Rs.28,079/- is hereby added in return of income of the assessee and charged to income tax as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE trading undisclosed income under the head of other sources of the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2017-18. 5 SHRI KESAR

Bhupinder Singh, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

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

ITA 88/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 88/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhupinder Singh Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward 6(1), H.No. 1407/21, Chandigarh 3Rd Floor, Phase Xi, Mohali 160055 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bvrps9583F अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Amitoz Singh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 69A

natural justice. 2. That the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law by treating the cash deposits of Rs. 51,04,215/- as unexplained money under section 69A, whereas the same was from legitimate sources. 3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the notice

Gopalrao Shankarrao Nagras, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

In the result these appeals of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 780/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ms Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 69A

event of effective failure to prove nature & source of cash repayment of ₹1.438Lakhs and ₹1.20Lakhs, the same were bought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of assessee vide assessment orders framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 2.2 The aforestated ... assessee failed to establish/explain the nature & source of cash available with him for repayment, the entire amount of such repayment were added as an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the respective AYs while framing best judgement assessments u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Since the assessee

Gopalrao Shankrrao Nagras, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

In the result these appeals of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 775/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Ms Deepa Khare [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Vista Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

same. 2. Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.24,11,50,000/-without considering the fact that the-unexplained money claimed to have been received by the assessee was held to be accommodation entries and therefore, the. same should have been taxed as unexplained credit

Satyaprakash Chouhan, Mhow vs. ITO 5 (3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 169/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Satyaprakash Ito-5(3), Chouhan, Indore 14, Geeta Bhawan Chouhraha Chakkiwale बनाम/ Mahadeo Complex, Vs. Mhow

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 69A

verified and not proved by the assessee. Therefore, the above amount of Rs.75,84,097/- so utilized by the assessee are herewith treated as Unexplained Money under Section 69A of the IT Act, Since the addition has been made u/s 69A of the IT Act, the tax is chargeable@ rates

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131

What to talk of establishing otherwise. Once the sale is declared as income by the assessee, the question of treating the same amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act results in double addition which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 9.3 Reliance is placed ... case, the cash deposited during demonetization period at Rs. 72,00,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and tax is charged as per provisions of section 115BBE of the IT act. Since the assessed income of the assessee includes income

Smt. Bridget Anthony(Legal Heir of Late Mr. Elevathingal Joseph Anthony), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

invoked. Section 69 of the Act is invoked for unexplained investment and section 69A of the Act is invoked for unexplained money. The provisions are reproduced below for ready reference; “Unexplained investments. 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which ... Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such

Sureshchand Suganchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2536/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

action of the learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.70,23,375/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as alleged unexplained money on the plea that the assessee is the beneficiary of the fictitious profits in commodity trading, without considering the facts and circumstances

Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 899/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

reads as under:- “[1] The Hon. CIT(A) was grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,51,500/- treating the amount as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act though the appellant has submitted all details and proved the identity of cash deposits and genuineness of the transaction

Ashok Ra vs. Aheb Tambe, Nashikvs.ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

ITA 999/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Ashok Ravsaheb Tambe 1630, Mhb Colony, Nr Kamgar Nagar, Kalyan Bhavan, Satpur Colony, Nashik-422007 Pan: Aeypt7687J. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; In This Appeal Assessee Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Apls/S/250/2023- 24/1062404804(1) Dt. 11/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The Addl./Jt Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-3, Bengaluru [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

hereinafter]. In the event of assessee’s failure to offer satisfactory explanation about nature & source thereof, the Ld. AO treated such cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A in the hand of assessee and brought the same to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. The appeal thereagainst before

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gondia vs. Shri Satishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Gondia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 29/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 69A

Cigarettes sales @ 1.60% 6,20,225.80 (e) Other items sales @ 3.5% 1,50,749.33 (f) Total business profit [(d) + 7,70,975.12 (e)] (g) Unexplained money u/s 69A 51,58,766.00 (h) Interest received credited to 33,349.48 (P&L A/c) Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta

Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gondia vs. Shri Satishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Gondia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 28/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 69A

Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Gondia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 24/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 69A

Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Gondia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 23/NAG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 69A

Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Gondia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

ITA 22/NAG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K.M. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 69A

Beekau Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

ITA 524/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

Vide impugned assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of a sum of Rs. 55,18,678/-, on account of unexplained money, applying provisions of section 69A of the Act. The assessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information available or received on record that the assessee was found

Beekau Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal

ITA 523/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

Beekau Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

25. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal No

ITA 522/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A