← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tpo, Shivamogga vs. M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services Private Limited, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of # 107, Subhadra Income Tax, Nilaya, S.P.M. Road, Circle – 1, Shimoga – 577 202. Vs. Shimoga. Pan: Aadcb3705F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2017-18 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 11/03/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 The Assessee Bhoopalam Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. Is A Company Registered Under The Companies Act & Carrying On Page 2 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

making addition of Rs.2,98,08,080/- U/s 69A read with section 115BBE, being cash deposited during the demonetization period as unexplained money, without considering the turnover of Rs.70,40,80,419/-, the figures which were readily available in the IT portal when the form 3CA/3CD was filed ... 2016/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1938 bearing no. 2774. 2.8 It is submitted that the Ld.AO presumed that the cash deposited during the period of demonetization as unexplained money, without verifying the fact that the assessee was permitted to collect specified bank notes of any denomination during the period of demonetization

M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services Private Limited, Shimoga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Shimgoa

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoopalam Marketing Services The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of # 107, Subhadra Income Tax, Nilaya, S.P.M. Road, Circle – 1, Shimoga – 577 202. Vs. Shimoga. Pan: Aadcb3705F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2017-18 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 11/03/2022 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 The Assessee Bhoopalam Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. Is A Company Registered Under The Companies Act & Carrying On Page 2 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

making addition of Rs.2,98,08,080/- U/s 69A read with section 115BBE, being cash deposited during the demonetization period as unexplained money, without considering the turnover of Rs.70,40,80,419/-, the figures which were readily available in the IT portal when the form 3CA/3CD was filed ... 2016/AGRAHAYANA 3, 1938 bearing no. 2774. 2.8 It is submitted that the Ld.AO presumed that the cash deposited during the period of demonetization as unexplained money, without verifying the fact that the assessee was permitted to collect specified bank notes of any denomination during the period of demonetization

Shri Balkrishna Vithal Shinde, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1753/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1753/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(1)(2), Shri Balkrishna Vithal Mumbai-400 703 Shinde A-9, Ganga Tower Co-Op बनाम/ Housing Society, Plot Vs. No. 40A, Sector-16, Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400 703, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaips4294A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 03.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 24.02.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-26

For Appellant: Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 144Section 264Section 69ASection 80C

bank accounts. Due to complete lack of evidences and cogent explanations, the cash deposits /other credits In the bank accounts were treated as unexplained money and Rs. 2,74,40,897/- was added u/s 69A of the IT Act to the total income of the assessee. The assesses also claimed