“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

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 265/ASR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

show cause as to why the said amount of Rs. 13232100/- shall not be treated as undisclosed income by treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the income tax act 1961. In response to the show cause notice dated 30.03.2021, the appellant filed a response on 31.03.2021. Golden

M/S. Golden Tulip Hospitality Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Srinagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 264/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA &

Section 150Section 250(6)Section 69A

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Sumit Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 833/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,60,71,350/- made by AO on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in stating that the addition made

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Kailash Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 831/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

DCIT Circle-20, Delhi vs. Aanshika Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Narinder Singh Punihani, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1743/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2019-20 . Sh. Narinder Singh Punihani, Vs. Dcit, S-160, Greater Kailash-2, Central Circle-19, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Adepp1450A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 69A

assessee. Alleging that the assessee failed to furnish proper evidence, such as, bills/vouchers, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.21 lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Learned first appellate authority upheld the addition. 4. We have

Ravindra Mahadev Satpute, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee i

ITA 1198/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravindra Mahadev Ito Ward 26(3)(6) Satpute Room No. 417, 4Th Floor, Vs. Group No.2, Pachubai Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Chawl, Hariyali Village, 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Vikhroli East, Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (East), 400083 Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Bhfps0240B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay Thakkar Revenue By : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. Ar : Date Of Hearing 07/11/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. AR

upheld the addition of Rs. 47,78,230/ upheld the addition of Rs. 47,78,230/- on account of on account of unexplained money u/s 69A made by the AO. Thus Ground no. unexplained money u/s 69A made by the AO. Thus Ground no. unexplained money u/s 69A made

DCIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Yograj Arora, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Yograj Arora Central Circle-25, 19, Western Avenue, New Delhi. Sainik Farms Khanpur, New Delhi – 110 062 Pan Aaepa3210E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 116BSection 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 69A

being satisfied t the appellant made an addition of Rs.145 Crores u/s 69A of the Act alleging by the explanation submitted by as unexplained money. On the perusal of the assessment order it was seen that the Assessing Officer has neither upon any of the submissions made by the appellant ... scope of this provision has been explained by the CBDT in its Circular No. 20, dated 7th July, 1964 thus: “Provision for assessment of unexplained money and the value of unexplained bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles. – 85. A new section 69A has been introduced by section

ACIT Circle-45(1), New Delhi vs. Vibha Taneja, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3047/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Vibha Taneja R-01B, 3Rd Floor, Tdi Mall, Circle – 45 (1) Vs Shivaji Place, District New Delhi Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 Pan No.Aafpt1050J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2Section 54Section 69A

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.12.50 crores made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that

Shri Sanjiv Vishwanath Rungta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1852/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R Toprani & MsFor Respondent: Shri Virabhandra Mahjan. Sr.DR

Section 69A

confirming the action of the AO of directing him to make addition u/s 69A by considering the additions to be computed by AO as unexplained money without appreciating the fact that the appellant had provided explanation of the source and had also submitted his cash book

Nanakchand Agrawal, L/H of Kalawati Agrawal, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 180/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 180/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nanakchand Agrawal L/H Of Kalawati Agrawal, Near Telephone Tower, Dhamtari, Baster Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan : Achpa6904A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.K Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

cash in hand available with her on the said relevant date and treating the entire amount of Rs. 23 lac (supra) as her unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made an addition of the same to her total income for the year under consideration. 6. Aggrieved

Kesari Bai Katiya, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 304/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 304/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kesari Bai Katiya 6/663, Karma Chowk, Ram Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Asbpg3620R

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 154

bank remained unexplained. Therefore, in the prevailing circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO of adding unexplained money of Rs.1,30,23,986/- In this view of the matter, the addition of Rs.1,30,23,986/- by the AO is hereby upheld. Consequently

Premilaba Ramde vs. Inh Jadeja, Rajkotvs.the ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 34/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

cause as to why an amount of time deposit to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs in Bank of India should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. As there was no response against

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Tapesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1344/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle, Tapesh Tyagi, Ghaziabad. R-2/202 Vs. Raj Nagar, (Pan:Acgpt1510N) Ghaziabad

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT - DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 154Section 69A

Rs.30,20,00,000 by applying the normal rate. According to the Assessing Officer, income surrendered by the assessee is in the nature of unexplained money in terms of section 69A of the Act. Though, he did not make any separate addition of the said amount ... that if explanation offered by the assessee regarding source of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles is satisfactory, it cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. In the facts of the present appeal, there is nothing on record to suggest that assessee’s explanation

Shri Subhash Arora, Raisen vs. The ITO 2(5), Bhopal

ITA 179/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Subhash Arora, Ito, Hig 9/B, Ishan Park, 5(2), Patel Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Raisen Road, Bhopal Vs.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54FSection 69A

sale proceed of plot. Ultimately, while completing assessment, the AO treated entire deposit of Rs. 15,53,000/- in Bank A/c as unexplained money u/s 69A and made addition. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and contested. 4. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) noted submissions of assessee

Anirudh Keshav Dubey, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Anirudh Keshav Dubey, I.T.O., Flat No. 602, Leela Tower, Near Daman Vs. Vatsav Park, Rofel College, Namdha Road, Vapi- 396191 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aejpd 7924 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 69A

notice issued by Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit and other credit aggregating of Rs. 9,39,200/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Rs. 208/- was also added to the income of assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order

The Sagreshwar Co-Op Credit Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1273/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Sagreshwar Co-Op Vs. Ito – 20(3)(4) Credit Society Ltd., Piramal Chambers, 2/178 Ramdoot Co-Op Lalbaug,Parel, Hsg Society Ltd, Mumbai-400012. Curry Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aacat5941L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Umesh Sinha. JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

account and further, all these transactions have been duly recorded in the books of account. Hence, the above said deposits cannot be considered as "unexplained money" in the hands of the assessee. 15. The case of the A.O is that the assessee has collected the demonetized notes after ... 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 the provisions of sec.68

Shweta Shyam Pedamkar, Mumbai vs. ITO-25(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2447/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshweta Shyam Vs. Ito – 25(1)(2) Pedamkar Bkc, Bandra, Jheel, B-101, Sanghvi Mumbai. Nagar, Mira Bhayander Road, Mira Road (E), Mumbai-401107. Pan/Gir No. : Bgzpp3221L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri AjaySingh&AkshayPawar.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J. Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

holding that Rs. 81,58,700/- was chargeable to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act as the same is considered by him as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act 4. That the impugned order being contrary to law, evidence and facts of the case may kindly be set aside

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-3, Surat vs. M/S Charu Jewels, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.74/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S Charu Jewels, Central Circle-3, 5/983, Charushila Jadakhadi, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfc8298F (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.1,78,84,325/- [9,00,00,000 - 1,00,00,000 - 6,17,00,000 - 4,15,675] was to be treated as unexplained money. 7. The assessing officer also observed that in cases where assessee deposited huge Cash in bank accounts during Demonetization period (9th November ... income which otherwise is taxable. Therefore the entire sum of Rs.1,78,84,325/-deposited in old notes was deemed by assessing officer, as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total income of the assessee. The assessing officer also stated that

Janga Rajasekhara Reddy, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.208/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Janga Rajasekhara Reddy Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dr.No.54-18/1-1A Income Tax Flat No.504, Lakshmi Residency Central Circle Prasanthi Nagar, Iti College Road Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Agmpj7948L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Madhukar Aves, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18 .10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad Vide Appeal No.10806/2019-20 Dated 30.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.12.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.)2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Ceo Of M/S Yugandhar Housing Private Limited, Had Filed His Return Of Income On 30.08.2018 By Admitting Total Income Of Rs.11,26,240/-. A Search & Seizure Operation

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

agricultural produce to prove the sources and genuineness of the claim. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer(AO) treated the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee and added to the total income for the year under consideration ... corroborative evidences. 4. The learned CIT(Appeals) is also not justified in treating the balance amount of disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T.Act even though the source is explained and 4 I.T.A. No.208/Viz/2023,A.Y.2018-19 Janga Rajasekhara Reddy, Vijayawada accepted as agricultural income