← 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

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3508/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JM

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3505/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of - - - - - - 4,54,13,452 unexplained money u/s 69A 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3504/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of - - - - - - 4,54,13,452 unexplained money u/s 69A 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3448/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023 2

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpa
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Nos.3448 & Others/Mum/2023 Α.Υ. 2015-16 to 2021-22 Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of unexplained money u/s 69A 4,54,13,452 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3447/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of - - - - - - 4,54,13,452 unexplained money u/s 69A 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3446/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of - - - - - - 4,54,13,452 unexplained money u/s 69A 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3445/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of - - - - - - 4,54,13,452 unexplained money u/s 69A 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience

Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3444/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd on-monies received on sale of flats 4. Addition of - - - - - - 4,54,13,452 unexplained money u/s 69A 3. It is noted that the reasoning given by the AO for making the above additions/disallowances were verbatim same across all AYs. Hence, for the sake of convenience

Esoof Shoeb Contractor, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3435/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3435/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Esoof Shoeb Contractor बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Vs. Ground Floor, Rubberwala 19Th Floor, Air India House, Dr. A Nair Road, Building, Nariman Point, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acopc8503G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mani Jain, Fca Revenue By: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2024 Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: आदेश / Order This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -52, Mumbai [ In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)'] Dated 31.07.2023 For Ay. 2021-22. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is Against The Ld. Cit(A)'S Action Of Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.12,32,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act']. Briefly Stated The Facts As Noted Are That, Cash Of Rs.12,32,000/- Was Found & Seized From The Premises Of The Assessee. In The Course Of Assessment, The Ao Held The Impugned Sum To Be Unexplained & Accordingly Added It U/S 69A Of The Act. Aggrieved By This Action Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Confirmed The Impugned Addition. Now The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us. 2

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 69A

appeal is against the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of sustaining the addition of Rs.12,32,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act']. Briefly stated the facts as noted are that, cash of Rs.12