← 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

Sachdev Steel Works Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1316/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1316/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd….….…….…......................…...……………....Appellant Room No.18B, First Floor, Karnani Estate, 209, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, West Bengal-700017. [Pan: Aadcs7342D] Vs. Ito, Circle-1(1), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, 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 : June 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 20.01.2023 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 Of Rs.2,48,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Treating The Share Application Money Received By The Assessee As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee Invoking Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Assessment Order To Submit That The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The I.T.A. No.1316/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd Assessee Had Received Share Application/Share Allotment Money From The Following Three Parties: Name Of The Applicants Amount Received Bharat Bhushan Sachdev Huf 3000000/- Shangrila Builders Pvt. Ltd. 4500000/- Spoxy Vincom Pvt. Ltd. 17300000/- Total 24800000/-

Section 250Section 68

allotment, I.T.A. No.1316/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sachdev Steel Pvt. Ltd therefore, the observation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has introduced the unexplained money as share application money, is not correct. Hence, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are not justified in this case and accordingly

Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 69A

Rs.13,02,652/- has been accepted by AO as a trading receipt, he cannot hold that the amount of Rs.32,00,848/- as undisclosed/ unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, unless he has material in his possession to show that assessee had undisclosed source of income, which ... Assessing Officer has accepted the nature and source of Rs.13,02,652/- and has added Rs.32,00,848/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money. The assessee has filed the books of accounts and other details called for the during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer