“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

Laxmi Sharma, Dewas vs. The ITO, W-1, Dewas

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Laxmi Sharma, I.T.O., 59, Kalisindh Marg, Ward-1, बनाम/ Mandir Ke Samne, Dewas Sonkatch, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Eczps1069E Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta,Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 69A

deposited in bank account during demonetization period. However, finding no response from assessee, the AO treated the amount deposited as unexplained money u/s 69A and made addition. The assessee carried the matter in first appeal but could not make any submission on the hearing dates fixed

Anuj Sood, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2

assessee fact by not allowing and confirming the addition made by the ld. AO to the tune of Rs.37,20,100/- on account of unexplained money u/s 2 Anuj Sood 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any proper reassoning in an arbitrary manner. 3. That

Hardik Rao, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circlr-7, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1902/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hardik Rao Dcit B-550, Sushant Lok Phase-I, Vs Central Circle -7 Galleria, Dlf-4, S.O. Delhi Gurgaon Pan No.Bgnpr4727F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69C

learned 6. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 15,93,770/- treating the same unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. (ii) That the above addition has been confirmed by arbitrarily rejecting the explanations and the evidences brought on record ... erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 23,907/-on account of commission treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69C of the Act. (ii) That the said addition has been made at the rate of 1.5% on the above alleged amounts of unexplained money

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

ITO 4(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 815/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer 4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 648, 6 Th Floor, 124, Mahavir Swami Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mandir, Zaveri Bazar, Road, Maharashtra Opp Kharakuwa Zaveri 400 020 Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacz6000G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Anil Kumar DasFor Respondent: Vimal Punamiya

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Zee Bangles Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited in new currency) as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the assesse. From the facts as described in the assessment order ... insist for providing details of sales below Rs 2 lakh which the assessee is not required to maintain. Section 69A reads as Unexplained money, etc. 69A Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such

Shri Deepak Setia, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 112/ASR/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.112/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

order to the extent ofconsidering the amount of Rs. 12,50,321/- as Income from undisclosed sources and treating it as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and charge tax as per provisions of Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that this amount

Brij Mohan Das Devi Prasad, Sehore vs. The ACIT Central Circle -2 Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 428/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S.Brij Mohandas Devi Acit/Dcit, Prasad, Central Circle 2, बनाम/ House No. 62, Ward No.18, Bhopal Station Road, Vs. Sehore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aadfb3526F Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ca & Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Ca, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 69Section 69A

erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO by treating the excess cash found during the survey proceedings as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action ... asking the assessee as to why the excess stock and excess cash should not be treated as unexplained investment in stock u/s 69 and unexplained money u/s 69A. Finding no reply from assessee, though the AO accepted the additional income of Rs. 3,03,37,828/- as declared by assessee

Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-CC - 1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 331/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc 1(1) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M M/S Mangal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cc 1(3) 202, 2Nd Floor, Chintamani 905, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Arcade, Opp. Bombay Bullion Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg Vs. (Annexe), M.K. Road, Bldg. Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcm2672M

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha and Shri

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

erroneous in facts and therefore liable to be deleted. 2. Addition made u/s 69A of Rs. 33,29,886/- as Unexplained Money The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. AO"] u/s 69A to the extent ... unexplained money. Such addition is bad in law & erroneous in facts and therefore liable to be deleted. 3. Passing the order against violation of natural justice The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thereby, passing the order without proper

Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Mangal Bullion P. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M Kacha and Shri

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

ITO, New Delhi vs. Anand Kumar Jain, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 697/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law in making the addition of Rs.2,01,08,000 on account of unexplained money of the assessee (regarding which the CIT-A has also not provided any relief and has upheld the said addition made in the impugned assessment ... case and in Law in imposing penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC by making additions u/s 69A of the Act, as there was no unexplained money hence this penalty is non imposable on the assessee. The addition made by the AO is unreasonable and unjustified after considering all the facts and circumstances

Shri Sanjay Mukund Paithankar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sanjay Mukund Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Paithankar, C/O Warde & – 3(3)(1), Room No. 1631, Shah, Chartered 16Th Floor, Air India Accountants, 1201, Building, Nariman Point, Regent Chambers, J.B. Mumbai, Maharashtra Marg, Nariman Point, 400 021 Mumbai – 40021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Arwpp8732F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: None

Section 148Section 250(6)Section 56Section 69A

Since, the assessee has not filed any detail regarding source of aforesaid cash deposit, therefore, the assessing officer has treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Ramesh Kumar Mantri HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148

action of the AO in making additions of Rs.1,08,297/- towards short term capital loss and treating the same to be out of unexplained money. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted

R P Wood Products Pvt Ltd, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

question is based on any material found during the course of search. But the amount of Rs.3,52,70,734/- does not represent any unexplained money, jewellery, valuable article or any other asset. No such asset has been identified by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings

M/S A J Coal Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7289/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

Section 148Section 151

failed to discharge its onus of establishing the purchases and failed to discharge its onus of establishing the purchases and disallowed peak amount of unexplained money mount of unexplained money of Rs. of Rs. 17,28,507/-. utilised for purchase of such stocks observing as under: utilised for purchase ... learned ITAT, Ahd. upheld computation of the ITD 428, the learned ITAT, Ahd. upheld computation of the peak amount of unexplained money utilized for peak amount of unexplained money utilized for purchase of purchase of stock (wrongly shown in the books of accounts as having stock (wrongly shown

ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S A J Coal Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5718/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

Section 148Section 151

M/S. Raj Dev, Kotkapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 93/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

with an addition 3 Raj Dev v. ITO u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 28,50,000/- as unexplained money and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 28,50,000/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order

Shri Harbans Singh Mann, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (4), Mansa

In the result, the ground no

ITA 129/ASR/2022[2010-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2010-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250oSection 69A

I.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2010-11 own document of assessee. So, the ld. AO has treated the deposit of cash as unexplained money and added back with the total income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After

Devender, Rohtak vs. ITO Ward - 1, Rewari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena & Shyam Sunder, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 148

present appeal is in respect of addition of Rs.64,22,000 for deposit of cash in the joint bank account by treating it as unexplained money of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a farmer and he is not earning ... held that explanations offered by the assessee are not found to be plausible and acceptable. He, therefore, treated the amount of cash deposit as unexplained money and added it as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, amounting to Rs.64,22,000. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the learned

Shri Vijay Kumar Singhla, Mansa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

quashed.” • NARAIN SINGLA vs. PCIT in ITA no. 427/CHD/2015 “Section 69A, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Jewellery) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Commissioner set aside assessment order under section 263 on ground that substantial jewellery was found during search at assessee's premises which