“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

Hoskote Chikkegowda Madegowda, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Mysuru

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

ITA 19/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA

Section 115BSection 69A

case. Page 2 of 7 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- made as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, by unreasonably rejecting the explanation tendered by the appellant for the source of the cash deposits made under the facts ... Page 3 of 7 considered by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO after verifying the bank accounts was of the opinion that Rs. 16 Lakhs was unexplained money and the same was added u/s. 69A of the act. The Ld.AO also initiated provisions of section 115BBE of the act. 2.2 Aggrieved

Sandeep Mithalal Jain, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur, Vijayapur

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

ITA 16/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 69A

impugned additions confirmed by the CIT(A) was uncalled for. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that there was no unexplained money at all and the credits in Bank Account are duly explainable since the deposits into the bank were in 3. Same as above ... income at Rs. 12,00,000/-after making addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.3 During the appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

assessment year 2018-19 and determined the income of the assessee as follows: SI No AY Income declared in response to Notice u/s 153C Unexplained money u/s 69 Income assessed ... assessment year 2018-19 and determined the income of the assessee as follows: SI No AY Income declared in response to Notice u/s 153C Unexplained money u/s 69 Income assessed

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

these appeals in ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063 & 1065/Bang/2023 except in ITA No.1066/Bang/2023 with regard to alleged addition made u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained money towards alleged advance made by assessee in cash to M/s. Shivan & Co. is without any valid seized material

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

M/S. Brahmi Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1048/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri GS Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT

Section 115BSection 68Section 80P

members only and it was deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee, The source, identity were explained, therefore, it can be treated as unexplained money. The AO noted that as per RBI letter dated 08.11.2016 & Govt. of India Gazette Notification dated 08.11.2016 the assessee was not designated/authorized

M/S. Prathibimba, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 1042/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri K. Thirumala Naidu .K, CA &

Section 144Section 234ASection 250(4)Section 68Section 69A

Ld.AO passed a best judgment order of assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, determining the total income of the appellant as unexplained money under the provisions of section 69A of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT

Preeti Bhardwaj, K vs. ITO Ward 29(3), Civic Centre

Appeal are allowed

ITA 78/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 120Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

passed after making the aggregate 3 addition of Rs. 29, 60000 / (- o) * n the alleged ground of unexplained money u / s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being Rs. 16,10,000/-as cash deposits in the bank account and Rs. 13,50,000/- as tax paid through cash ... raised by the Appellant is regarding the impugned addition of Rs. 29,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on the alleged ground of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the explanation and documentary evidences furnished during the course of assessment proceedings

Prity Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Iti, Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

account of value of credit entries including cash deposits appearing in the Bank account with Oriental Bank of commerce deeming it as a unexplained money u/s 69A. 2 Prity Agarwal, AY 2017-18 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the entire transactions ... assessee, Ld. AO concluded the assessment u/s. 144 and made the addition of Rs.1,05,43,856/- u/s. 69A holding it as unexplained money. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition so made. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

then one part of credit side of the trading account. that is, sales cannot be discarded completely so as to hold that it is unexplained money." 6.24 The appellant has submitted NFAC decision of sister concern/ Associated entity M/s Sahana Jewelry Private Limited :-24-: ITA. No: 1106/Chny/2023 pertaining ... then one part of credit side of the trading account, that is, sales cannot be discarded completely so as to hold that it is unexplained money." 7.2 In the instant case the assessee has established the sales with the bills and representing outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted

Motabhai Alibhai and Sons, Viramgam, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes, as we set aside the orders of the AO as well as ld

ITA 808/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Motabhai Alibhai & Sons, Ito, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Lokhand Bazar, Viramgam, V. Ahmedabad, Gujarat Ahmedabad-382150, Gujarat Pan:Aaefm1116D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, Ar & Sh. Samit L Jain & Sh. Saiyam, Ars Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024 (Signed By The Jm On 20.03.2024)

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, AR & Sh. Samit L Jain, &For Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 69A

Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs.2,43,95,620/- on the ground that it is unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act of the appellant firm though it relates to a proprietorship firm of and, therefore the learned

Namde vs. Inh Mahendrasinh Vaghela, Ahmedabadvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 635/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Demonetization Period & Rs.10,67,000/- During Demonetization Period.

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 69A

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.17,61,310/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred ... only reason given by the Ld. A.O. for two years gap in re- depositing of cash, during the demonetization period thereby added as the unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. In our considered opinion, the assessee offered proper explanation with bank details about the sale of the agricultural land

Arav Telecom, Pimpri, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(5), Akurdi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1055/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

bank u/s. 133(6) of the Act, having received and analyzing the same, the AO treated the cash deposits in Vijaya Bank, Pimpri as unexplained money and added the said amount to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act and charged the same ... income at 15% of such receipt estimated profits at Rs.1,70,90,969/-. Thus, the AO inter alia made two additions on account of unexplained money and profit on estimation vide its order dated 18-12-2019 u/s. 144 of the Act. Having aggrieved by the said order, the assessee

Naramuthu Naicker Nataraj, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

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

ITA 1400/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA

Section 115BSection 133Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee, ld. Assessing Officer based on best judgment assessment order u/s.144 of the Act added the cash deposits of Rs.15,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before

Manakraj Naveen Munoth, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate .Ward 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1373/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Manakraj Naveen Munoth, The Income Tax Officer, No.20, Ponnappan Lane, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Park Town, Chennai. Chennai – 600 003. Pan: Aahpk 7227J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

been earned long term capital gain of Rs.15,38,233/- as accommodation entries. The AO treated this sale consideration on sale of shares as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and added to the returned income of the assessee. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved

Ramu Gatati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 80/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramu Gatati, Hyderabad. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(1), Shop No.38, Amc, Market Yard, Hyderabad. Secunderabad, Telangana – 500009. Pan : Biwpg0784N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate. Revenue By: Miss. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Miss. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

show cause notice. As the assessee failed to explain the source of deposit of the cash, the same was being added as unexplained money u/s 69A to be taxed under the special provision of section 115BBE. Thus, Assessing Officer completed the assessment interalia making addition of Rs.3

Dilip Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(6), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

vide order dated 04.12.2019 by making addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by treating the same as unexplained money. The assessment was completed accordingly. Against this the assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A) who affirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved against this

Seema Sinha, Indore vs. ITO-4(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposited in the bank account by treating it as unexplained investment and unexplained money without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 4.The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken