“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. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for ground no

ITA 2592/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumargardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, Central Circle-7, Up-201301 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Dcit, Vs. Gardenia Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-7, Plot No. Gh-1, Sector-46, Noida, New Delhi Up-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcg5568K Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

same have not been recorded in the books of account. Accordingly, the AO made addition u/s 69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained money received by the assessee during the relevant financial year. 8. From the relevant part of first appellate order we further note that ... Aims Developers Pvt. Ltd search operation therefore the Assessing Officer was right in making addition in the hands of assessee treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition u/s. 69A of the Act without

Shri.Thomas George Kondody, Kottayam vs. The ITO, Kottayam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 391/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.S.Rajagopal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

Rs.26 lacs), he could not qua the credit of Rs.25 lacs on 17.12.2009, which was accordingly deemed as his income by way of unexplained money u/s. 69A. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A), at the assessee’s instance, sought remand report from the Assessing Officer (AO) upon examining Sri.K.U.Joseph, the person

Kanaka Mahalakshmi Crackers, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 240/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

account. Therefore, the Ld. AO proceeded to treat the amount of Rs. 44,50,000/- [Rs. 64,50,000 – Rs. 20,00,000] as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

Ginjala Atchiraju, L/R. of Ginjala Simhadri Raju, Kakinada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

capital gains. The balance amount of Rs. 1 Cr which was not supported by the registered sale deed, the Ld. AO considered it as unexplained money received and assessed as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings

Shri Amandeep Singh, Kapurthala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA no

ITA 59/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.59/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 251(2)Section 44ASection 69A

Facts and law on the point has erred in the making an enhancement in income of Rs.265651/- alleged to be unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act instead of considering it as a business receipts u/s. 44AD to be tax3d @8% or max up to 25.52% as declared

Shri Ramchandra Dhopeshwarkar, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Ramchandra Vs. International Tax Dhopeshwarkar, 404/11J Ward 2(1)(1) Neelam Nagar Chs, Room No. 1724, 17Th Phase Ii, Gavan Pada, Floor, Air India Building, Mulund (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400081 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afrpd9868F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das Date Of Hearing 08.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, Dated 15.01.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai, Is Bad In Law On Various Grounds Apart From Being Passed In Gross Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine On The Alleged Ground Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Without Giving Any Opportunity & Without Appreciating The Fact There Is Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Factually Incorrect. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Dealing With The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Before Him Despite Receiving The Remand Report From The Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 69A

assessing officer treated the cash deposited in the bank account of HDFC amounting to Rs.4,66,676/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and taxed made u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4. The assessing officer also noticed that assessee has received an amount of Rs.6781/- from HDFC bank

Dy. CIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Rekha Khaitan, Delhi

ITA 2831/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee to purchase the jewelry. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in restricting the addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 from Rs. 1,14,15,054/- to Rs. 38,60,667/- by not considering that Wealth ... changing the nature of unexplained which was in the form of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I.T. Act, 1961, to unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5) (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts

Rekha Kaitan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 2520/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

that the amount has been withdrawn for Page No. | 7 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO other purposes and the amount re-deposited by the Appellant is unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. iii)In the given case, the Appellant is an Individual and does not have any business income ... Trib.) it was held that, "Re-deposit of excess withdrawals made out of explained bank deposits can't be held as unexplained money." v. In the case of Assit. CIT v. Baldev Raj Charla [2009] 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi)] it was held that, "Where there were sufficient cash withdrawals

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

held that neither any item in the trading account, nor gross profit has been rejected, sales cannot be discarded completely to hold that is unexplained money. In a similar case pertaining to CIT vs. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. it was held that the AO has not proved that

Rameshbhai Chhaganbhai Ajmeriya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 70/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 69Section 69A

following observations: “5. The only issue in the appeal is addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- u/s.69 A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained money on the alleged ground that the appellant failed to explain source of cash deposits alongwith necessary evidences. 5.1 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee

Manjit Jitrndrabhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

Unexplained Investment. 2. The Learned AO has erred in making Arbitrary and unjust addition of Rs. 632500/- being cash deposit In Bank Account as unexplained money.” Manjit Jitendrabhai Kothari vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment ... proceeded to pass ex parte assessment order under section 144 of the Act by treating the aforesaid cash deposit of ₹ 6,32,500/-as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. In appeal, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the source of the aforesaid deposit was partly

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bhilai vs. Shri Nitin Sankhla, Durg

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 98/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

disclosed by the assessee in his books of account. Accordingly, the very first basis for treating the amount of Rs.6.86 lacs (supra) as the unexplained money of the assessee u/s.69A of the Act fails. Adverting to the observation of the A.O that the assessee might have received the sales proceeds ... Central Government, the same in my considered view would by no means justify the treating of the amount in question as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Assuming that the assessee had continued with receiving of the sale proceeds in the form of demonetized currency even after

Suraj Dinesh Singhal, Mumbai vs. ITO-20(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7483/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesuraj Dinesh Singhal Vs. Ito – 20(3)(3) B-601/602, Green 4Th Floor, Piramal Acres, Lokhandwala Chambers, Lalbaug, Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aowps3343E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Siddharth Shriovastav.Ar Respondent By : Mr. S.G.Mehta.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 53, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr.Siddharth Shriovastav.ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.G.Mehta.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 69ASection 80C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,69,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred

Parveen Commodity Brokers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 19(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5173/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: . Rajesh Dhanesta. SrFor Respondent: . Rajesh Dhanesta. Sr

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 29Section 56(2)(viia)

addition of a sum of Rs. 22,25,000/- representing alleged unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant company held as unexplained money. 4. That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient and effective proper opportunity to 3 Parween Commodity Brokers ... income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viia) of the Act and further made addition of Rs. 22,25,000/- as unexplained money in the books of accounts. Accordingly, computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 7,59,33,453/- as against the returned income

Shri Nasir Ahmed Rangshu, Anantnag vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 73/ASR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

Section 115BSection 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

give any reasonable explanation with regard to the source and reason of carrying the said cash. Hence, the AO treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed accordingly u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the finding ... confirming the addition of Rs.10,50,000/- as 16 I.T.A. No. 73/Asr/2023 Nashir Ahmad Rangshu v. Asstt. CIT unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed accordingly u/s 115BBE of the Act. 9. In the above view, we hold that the submission and contentions raised

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 173/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section 694, read with sections 143, 153, 1334 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained moneys (Admission in sworn statement) Assessment years 2001- 02 to 2007-08-Assessing Officer made additions as undisclosed income on basis of sworn statements of assessee

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 171/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 158B

Shree Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 12/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Abhishek Bipinbhai Naik I.T.O., (Prop. Of M/S Shivbhole Services), Ward 1(2)(1), Vs. House No. 1, Desai Faliyu, At Po Surat. Vaktana, Tal, Choryasi Via Sachin, Surat-394230. Pan No. Agppn 5994 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 69A

facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115 BBE of the Act, on account of alleged Unexplained Money ignoring the business of the appellant and/or without appreciating the fact that the same is the part of gross receipts from business and the net income on such