← 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

Vidyasagar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 38, Midnapore

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

ITA 6/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.06/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vidyasagar Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd..…...……………....Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabav4239J] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Kolkata…….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 03, 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 18.12.2023 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 Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition By The Cit(A) Of Rs.91,87,680/-, Which Has Been Made By The Assessing Officer By Treating The Cash Deposits Made In Specified Bank Notes During The Demonetization Period As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee U/S 69A Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

Section 250Section 26Section 69A

lieu of cash sales made by it, therefore, the said amount deposited by the assessee in the bank account was to be treated as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the said amount into the income of the assessee ... 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

Anjappan Kandasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 460/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.459/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.460/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Kandasamy Dcit बनाम/ #89/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqpk-2230-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

operation which was kept at assessee- partner’s residence. However, Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. 5.3 During search, jewellery weighing approx. 880 grams was found. The assessee stated that the same related to his family members and the source

Anjappan Kandasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.459/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.460/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Kandasamy Dcit बनाम/ #89/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqpk-2230-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

operation which was kept at assessee- partner’s residence. However, Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A. 5.3 During search, jewellery weighing approx. 880 grams was found. The assessee stated that the same related to his family members and the source

R R Foods, Madurai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 1(7), Madurai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1359/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1359/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S R.R. Foods Ito बनाम/ Non-Corporate Ward-1(7) 20, Kamala Ii Street, Vs. Madurai. Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapfr-0879-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.90.49 Lacs as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee whereas Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee ... debtors despite the fact that the same ceased to be legal tender. Accordingly, the differential deposit of Rs.90.64 Lacs was to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A. Consequently, Ld. AO reduced proportionate profit on such receipts and added the remaining amount of Rs.90.49 Lacs to the income

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 751/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykanala Subramanyam The Income Tax Officer No. 58/1, 8Th Cross, 12Th Main Ward - 5(2)(5), Bengaluru Raghavendra Block Vs. Srinagar, Bengaluru 560050 Pan – Bryps2091H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1062689536(1) Dated 15.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Is Highly Unjust, Arbitrary & Contrary To Law & The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Banking Transaction Of The Appellant During F.Y. 2016-17 Were In The Normal Course Of The Appellant'S Business Activities & That The Cash Deposits To His Bank Account

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

entire cash deposits into bank accounts namely Canara Bank, Union Bank Of India and Indian Bank totalling to Rs. 41,43,500/- as the unexplained Money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed U/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 709/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Vs. Ito, No.98, 1St Cross, Near White Park Ward – 3(3)(5), Apartments, Kudulu Village, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Bjsps 3665 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sowkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2023, In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Working As A Physical Instructor In The Cambridge Public School At Bangalore. During The Demonetization Period, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Into His Bank Accounts Amounting To Rs.22,53,400/- & Therefore Issued Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act For Which The Assessee Had Failed To File Reply. Thereafter, A Show Cause Notice Was Also Issued To The Assessee For Which Also Assessee Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Corporation Bank account and contended that the deposits are having proper source and therefore the same could not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The learned AR further contended that the assessee had shifted his residence and therefore not received any communication from ... assessee had deposited the amount in his bank account from the known sources and therefore the same could not be treated as an unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. But the documents now filed by the assessee before this Tribunal were not placed before the lower authorities