← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

account of the assessee. The money transferred from his own foreign bank a/c to his own NRI A/c in India. This will not attract unexplained money. 69C: Unexplained This section will not attract as no expenditure is involved. Expenditure 17. Reference to the Board circular by Assessing Officer is also

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

account of the assessee. The money transferred from his own foreign bank a/c to his own NRI A/c in India. This will not attract unexplained money. 69C: Unexplained This section will not attract as no expenditure is involved. Expenditure 17. Reference to the Board circular by Assessing Officer is also

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1436/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

separate addition is required to be made in the case of the assessee. The learned assessing officer rejected the same and found that unexplained money u/s 69A of the act has been used to the extent of ₹ 80,000. Accordingly, he made the addition. The assessment order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1424/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

separate addition is required to be made in the case of the assessee. The learned assessing officer rejected the same and found that unexplained money u/s 69A of the act has been used to the extent of ₹ 80,000. Accordingly, he made the addition. The assessment order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), New Delhi vs. Juventus Estate Ltd., New Dlhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1423/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

separate addition is required to be made in the case of the assessee. The learned assessing officer rejected the same and found that unexplained money u/s 69A of the act has been used to the extent of ₹ 80,000. Accordingly, he made the addition. The assessment order

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Juventus Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2379/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

separate addition is required to be made in the case of the assessee. The learned assessing officer rejected the same and found that unexplained money u/s 69A of the act has been used to the extent of ₹ 80,000. Accordingly, he made the addition. The assessment order

ACIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai vs. Juventus Estate Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for assessment year 2017 – 18 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2377/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. K Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Dharamveer Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 56Section 69A

separate addition is required to be made in the case of the assessee. The learned assessing officer rejected the same and found that unexplained money u/s 69A of the act has been used to the extent of ₹ 80,000. Accordingly, he made the addition. The assessment order

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

dated 26.11.2019 with addition of Rs. 16,00,500/- u/s 69A of the Act being the cash deposited in his saving bank account as unexplained money. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee is not able to justify the source of cash deposit during the relevant assessment year whether

Sathian Kumaresan, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 545/CHNY/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 545/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 69A

Learned CIT(A) had erred both in law and on the facts of the case in treating the Cash deposits during Demonetization as unexplained money under Sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ 'the Act]. 11. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the order of A.O. in disallowing

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

This issue is extensively discussed by the AO in his order vide para-4.1 to 4.12 of the Assessment Order. “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 money, bullion

Sidhesh Films P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69A

representing cash deposits as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and completed the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) observed that for such unexplained money, the right section to apply would be Section 69A of the Act, and accordingly, proceeded to examine the addition from the context of Section

Umamaheswari, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs.Umamaheswari, V. The Income Tax Officer, 12A, Perumal Konar Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(2), Vpc Nagar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Abrpu 4791 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Erode AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 69Section 69A

erred in not considering the fact that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.7,67,500/- treating it as unexplained money u/s. 69A without any basis. 6) The learned C1T(A) erred in not considering the scope and effect of the Specified Bank "Notes (Cessation of Liabilities ... assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming additions made towards cash deposits of Rs.7,67,500/- by treating it as unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee can transact in Specified Bank Notes up to appointed date as per the Specified

Porkodi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 378/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt.Porkodi, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.2B/8, Dabc Mithilam Apartments, Non-Corporate Ward-8(3), Sir Ram Nagar, Main Road, Chennai. Nolambur, Chennai. [Pan: Bkepp 7297 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.D.Anand, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 69A

ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1041151277(1), dated 21.03.2022, is against the facts of the case, weight of evidence on record and principles of natural justice. Grounds: Addition of Unexplained money U/S.69A The Hon'ble CIT(Appeals), NFAC, has failed to appreciate the fact of the case, in confirming the addition of cash deposits ... tune of Jj*s.17 Lakhs (out of Rs.18. Smt.Porkodi :: 2 :: Lakhs total addition made by the learned AO) as unexplained money U/S. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. of the Income Tax Act, without considering the evidence produced, materials on record. The Appellant may kindly be permitted to adduce

Muthusamy Arunadevi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward2(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri A.Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

period were Rs.7.70 lakhs. No explanation was submitted before the AO and hence, the AO treated the entire cash deposits during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act @ 60%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4.1 Before

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 133ASection 68

then one part of credit side of the trading account, that is, sales cannot be discarded completely so as to hold that it is unexplained money." 7.2 In the instant case the assessee has established the sales with the bills and representing outgo of stocks. The sales were duly accounted

Lucy Trevor Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelucy Trevor Pereira V. Ito – Ward-4(2) Evbriel Villa, Khazanbhat 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Mulgoan, Vasai Road No. 16Z Thane, Mumbai - 401201 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane, Mumbai - 400604 Pan: Alspp7736M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha
Section 69A

which reason the appeal order be quashed/set aside. 2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,00,000/-, as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961, on account of cash deposited in the bank accounts, without appreciating the fact that provisions

Shobha Arun Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1344/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69ASection 80G

explanations were submitted and the assessee has failed to prove the source and receipt of income, the A.O. treated the entire income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and assesseed the total income of Rs.16,89,320/-and passed the order under Section

Shobha Arun Parmar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -25(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1343/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69ASection 80G

explanations were submitted and the assessee has failed to prove the source and receipt of income, the A.O. treated the entire income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and assesseed the total income of Rs.16,89,320/-and passed the order under Section

Mr Sanjay R Tarukhia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2551/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

short ‘the Act’) by making addition of Rs.34,66,384/- on account of cash and other deposits by treating the same as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act primarily on the ground that assessee has not furnished the detail as required by way of notice

Shri. Ashok Kumar V Sanghi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7952/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

However, the assessee chose to maintain conspicuous silence on this point.” Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs. 36,61,561, as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. Shri Ashok Kumar V. Sanghi ITA No.7952/Mum./2019 14. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed