← 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

Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Mudaliyar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3 Thane, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2894/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rameshvar P Meena/Nimesh

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,90,75,200/- on account of Unexplained Money. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without considering ... circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,94,59,500/- on account of Unexplained Money. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without considering

Krishnamoorthy Ramlinngam Mudaliyar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3 Thane, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2893/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rameshvar P Meena/Nimesh

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,90,75,200/- on account of Unexplained Money. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without considering ... circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,94,59,500/- on account of Unexplained Money. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without considering