“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

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 135/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay-Trust Plot No.185, Shree Ayyappa Temple Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaata0312K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A), 53 634, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

erred in holding that Rs. 3.07.77.671/- 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 ... currency during the demonetization period amounting to Rs 2,88,96,000/-. This amount of Rs 2, 88, 96,000/- AO treated as unexplained money u/s. 69A and treated the same as chargeable to tax u/s. 115BBE. Thereafter Ld.CIT(E) issued a notice u/s. 263 dated

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

bank account i.e. cash has been withdrawn from three saving account and majorly deposited in a single bank account, can’t be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and hence we request your honour to delete the addition made by Ld. AO which is solely based

Ballu Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Pawan Gupta, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 193/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.190/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta (Huf) M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aamhr5784E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.191/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rahul Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aexpg9423L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.192/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radhika Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aqfpm4577M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.193/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pawan Gupta M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Adcpg7808B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

medium of transaction of sale of shares, therefore, it can safely; or in fact inescapably be concluded that the same was the assessee’s unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, which it had received back through banking channel in the form of sale consideration of the said shares. Thus

Radhika Gupta, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 192/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Shri Rahul Gupta, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 191/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Rahul Gupta(HUF), Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 190/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri R.B Doshi, CA

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Samir S Mehta, Maharashtra vs. CIT (A)-4, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.42/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Samir Shantilal Mehta, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, 1003, 10Th Floor, Sagardeep, South Surat. Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpm5453D (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Vartik Choksi & Biren Shah, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

hearing.” 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal is that whether provisions of section 115BBE would be applicable to tax the unexplained money being undisclosed gold, Jewellery found during the course of search, when the date of search is 16.08.2016? 4. Learned Counsel for the assessee argued ... that the issue is relating to taxing the unexplained money being undisclosed and gold jewellery found during the course of search u/s 115BBE of the Act. In this appeal the contention of the assessee is that as on the date of search i.e. 16.08.2016, the amendment to section 115BBE

Ashok Wasan, New Delhi vs. Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1784/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

disallowed and added back to the income of assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessee being the owner of unexplained money and where the Assessee has failed to offer a reasonable justification.” 4. On going through the record, we find that there has been only

Amit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 60(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 356/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Amit Jain, Vs Ito, T 184/3, T-Block, Gali No.3, Ward-60(6), Gautampuri, New Delhi-110053. New Delhi. Pan-Adbpj8393D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahil Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2023

Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 69A

erred in upholding the addition made by Ld. AO on account of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.15,24.000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 7. That on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case

Kailash Mittal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 247/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 69A

further not tenable under the law because the amount of Rs. 3,32,313/- do not represent any unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article but it represented the amount of expenditure made by her. 6. That the addition of Rs. 3,32,313/- is not tenable under

Shrikant Ratilal Patel, Mumbai vs. CIT, Pune-11, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3042/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3042/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) Shrikant Ratilal Patel बिधम/ Commissioner Of Income 303 Sai Kutir, Narayan Nagar Tax Vs. Road Pune- 11 Bhayandar (W)-401101

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by AO of Rs. 13,93,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the Act”). 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Cosmos Trading Company

Rajhans Infratech Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, decided in favour of the assessee. Consequently, appeal of assessee is allowed and impugned addition is deleted

ITA 2153/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2153/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, M-32, 2Nd Floor, Gk-1, Circle-21(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacd0055F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

credit entry from M/s Express Tower Pvt. Ltd. into the hands of M/s.Arti Securities and Services P. Ltd., to be the source of unexplained money which reached the hands of the assessee, but the assessment in the hands of M/s. Express Tower Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2015-16 is concluded

Maruti Tradexim Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2), New Delhi

ITA 3615/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

from the aforesaid corporate entity M/s Pushpanjali Export Pvt. Ltd. (now amalgamated with M/s Core International Ltd) is nothing but unexplained money of the assessee brought into its business in the guise of share capital/share premium. Therefore the same is added into the income of the assessee

Mukesh Soni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

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

deposit of cash made in the bank account 20 Mukesh Soni vs. ITO and submitted that the same is accounted cash and not unexplained money. The ld. AO has not verified anything which is placed on record merely the addition is made on assumptions and guesswork without contradicting the facts

Shri Rakesh Madhubhai Kanpariya, Prempara, Dhari, Amreli-365640 vs. The ITO, Ward-3 (1) (4), Amreli

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 255/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shri Rakesh Madhubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Kanpariya Ward-3(1)(4), Rajkot- Vs. Prempara Dhari Prempara Amreli Dhrai, Prempara Dhari Dhari, Amreli – 365640, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Daipk3406F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri K. L. Solanki, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 18/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.07.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: None

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

income. However, as no explanation was ultimately filed by the assessee in respect of the nature and source of cash deposit, the same remained unexplained money, under Section 69A of the Act addition to the tune of Rs.10,49,500/- was made by the Ld. AO. 5. Being aggrieved

Shri Gurbinder Singh Mahal, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-IV ( 2), Amritsar

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

ITA 22/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 144Section 144oSection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 250o

Assessment Year: 2014-15 7.3) PrincipalCIT, Belagavi vs Basetteppa B Badami, [2018] 93 taxmann.com 66 (Karnataka) “Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Cash deposits) - Assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12 - For preceding assessment year, sufficient amount of cash in hand ... brought forward had reached finality - During current year, on basis of cash deposits in assessee's bank accounts, Assessing Authority made addition of unexplained money - Whether since brought forward cash in hand of preceding assessment year was sufficient, addition on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank account of assessee

Amit Makkar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(4), Delhi

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

ITA 616/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the additions made on account of cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.28,40,000/- as unexplained money of the assessee under Section 69A r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act. The I.T.A No.616/Del/2023 2 assessee has further challenged the summary disposal

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act. According to the ld. Pr. CIT, the addition made in the assessment was on account of unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and hence, the correct penalty provision to be initiated would be u/s 271AAC

ITO, Ward 4 (1), Mumbai vs. Mangesh Moreshwar Mhatre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

failed to produce the details as asked by him and therefore, he treated the deposits of cash aggregating to Rs.1,88,08,770/- as unexplained money added u/s.69A. 5. The ld. CIT (A) took note of certificate from the bank and details of SBN deposits which has been highlighted from