“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

Arun Enterprises, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1096/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 14Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 163Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam vs. Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 668/VIZ/2019[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Ward-3(2), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No.22/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.668/Viz/2019) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Sri Mutchuakarla Appa Rao, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(2), Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasad Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 17/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasad Rao

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250A

Considering the information furnished and the material available on record, the Ld. AO concluded the assessment by making the following additions: (i) Unexplained money found in the possession of Rs. 12,00,000 assessee (ii) Unexplained investment in purchase of Rs. 43,59,500 property at Pendurti (iii) Short Term

Om Prakash Verma, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur

ITA 87/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 87/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Om Prakash Verma H. No.53, Star Homes Campus, Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (M.P)-462 039 Pan : Aaipv9836F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156

assessee despite sufficient opportunities failed to comply with the aforesaid directions, therefore, the A.O held the entire amount of Rs.15,61,705/- as the unexplained money of the assessee and made an addition of the same to his returned income. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) dated

Pawan Meena, Plot No.91 vs. ITO, WD2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/JPR/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

details of parties to whom sales were made. This explanation of assessee gives rise to suspicion. The assessee has tried to accommodate his unexplained money as unusual increase in cash deposit in the guise of cash sales. This give rise to doubt in correctness of the books of accounts ... evidences , arbitrarily finalized the assessment by considering cash deposited into Axis Bank account no. 915010049484870 to the tune of Rs,. 62,97,000/- as unexplained money with in the realm of section 69A and thereby made addition of Rs. 62,97,000/- to the returned Income . Aggrieved by the order

Bhoop Kaur Anand, India vs. ACIT, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), India

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

ITA 1475/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

case in confirming action of the AO in making addition of Rs.1249000 by alleging that cash deposited in the bank account is unexplained money. The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) is illegal excessive and deserves to be deleted in full. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred

Karina Kunjana Kapoor, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 171/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 171/Del/2021, A.Y. 2015-16 Smt. Karina Kunjana Kapoor Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income C-4, 6 Aurangzeb Road, Tax, Central, Central Circle-19, Delhi- 110001 New Delhi Pan : Bfnpk7229C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

following additions: Particulars Amount (INR) a) Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A Rs. 3,50,000/- b) Addition on account of unexplained money credit u/s 69A Rs. 34,50,000/- 2.1 During the year under consideration the assessee deposited cash total amounting

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

deposits made by the assessing officer out of the deposits made in the bank account of the appellant, treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The action of NFAC/CIT(A) is not in accordance with the facts of the case and deserve to be deleted ... income despite giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition under Section 69A by treating the deposit as unexplained money. Since the assessee has not disclosed the source of deposit, thus the assessee has concealed the income. The Assessing Officer made addition under section

Nirmalaben Jaswantsinh Rathod, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-5, Vapi

In the result, the original grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 131/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Peela Govind Apparao, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.16/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

income at Rs. 24,92,280/- which includes two additions viz., (i) deposits in SBI, Kotapadu during demonetization period and treated the same as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and charged the tax as per section 115BBE of the Act for Rs. 21,17,600/- and (ii) total

Mrs Shweta Soni, Indore vs. The ITO 5(4), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

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

appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. CIT(A) was not justified to add Rs. 3,00,000.00 on account of unexplained money u/s 69A, in the total income of the appellant as the appellant has deposited cash out of her cash sales made during the year under ... Assessing Officer observed that no satisfactory documentary evidence was submitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A at the rate prescribed under Section 115BBE of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal

U V Buildcon (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 27(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 696/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

apparent that the above sum of Rs.2.20.00.000 represents the quantum of willfully suppressed sales. Sec. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with unexplained money, etc. It states that “Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other

Satya Prakash Goyal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2820/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69A

assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment by treating the cash of Rs.20,40,000 found in the locker as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. The addition made was confirmed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have ... veracity of assessee’s claim, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and proceeded to treat the cash found as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. This, in my view, is improper. When the assessee had made certain statement explaining the source of cash found

Navratan Daga, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 910/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-219

Section 132Section 69ASection 69C

Officer, the assessee did not file any reply to explain the source of cash found. As a result, the Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and added back to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the addition by filing

Smt. Gauri Chhabra W/O Sh, Ashok Kumar, Muktsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - (5), Muktsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

Returned Income”. In the assessment, the ld. AO made additions amounting to Rs. 13,82,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money deposited in bank account. The details of cash deposit in bank are as follows: - S. No. Date Amount

Shri Jaspal Singh, Moga vs. ITO Ward-3, Moga

ITA 210/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

That the Ld. CIT(A) has confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 11 lac as assessee’s unexplained money. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciate that the balance sheet filed along with the return of income, the figures ... erred confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for making the addition of Rs. 11 lacs as assessee’s unexplained money, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that it was an inadvertent mistake

Peerless Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9750/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 69C

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C read with Section 115BBE of the Act and further, made addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,61,24,093/- as against returned loss ... made by the A.O. u/s 69C which was sustained by the CIT(A) is deserves to be deleted. Ground No. 5 & 6 Addition as unexplained money of Rs.1,00,00,000/-: 12. Brief facts are that a MOU between the assessee and M/s Rajat Pharmachem Ltd. was seized. During

Peerless Consultancy Services P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9748/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 69C

Pawan Raj Goyal, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-17, Delhi

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

ITA 575/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Divyansh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Senior DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 154Section 69A

account of cash found during the course of search and seizure operation as unexplained money by ad-hoc estimation of expenses incurred.” 3. In this case, following assessment order was passed under section 143 (3) read with section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short

Eland International P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 971/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri

Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

merely on surmise and conjectures made additions u/s. 68 and u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unaccounted and unexplained money Rs.11,16,52,500/- and protective addition of Rs.12,55,62,748/- based on unreliable and unverified Xerox copy of evidence provided in complain received

DCIT, Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Krihna Kumar Verma, Indore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 185/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

further submitted that the total amount surrendered on account of excess cash and excess stock was treated by the AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and unaccounted investment u/s 69B of the Act respectively and was rightly taxed u/s 115BBE