← 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

Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 15(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1571/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1571/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramaswamy Akilandeswari, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 16, New No. 35, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Ganapathy Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Aibpa6254B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 28.03.2018 Admitting Income Of ₹.5,00,620/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass. The Assessing Officer Issued Statutory Notices Followed By 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 69A

assessee had failed to furnish source of cash deposited in SBN of ₹.18,36,500/- treating the same as unexplained money. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the grounds of appeal and supporting materials uploaded along with Form 35 as well

Steel House, Chennai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1464/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1464/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Steel House, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 11, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 19(4), Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai. [Pan:Aabfs0085L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 19.10.2023 Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2023-24/1057223180(1) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Disposing Of The Appeal Ex Parte Without Considering The Facts Of The Case & The Submissions Made In The Proper Perspective. 2. Merits

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

tender. 2.8 In any event, even assuming that it is sale proceeds during the demonetization period, it could not be brought to tax as unexplained money u/s. 69A just because they were SBNs. 3. Interest u/ss. 234B & 234C: 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the interest levied u/ss,234B