“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. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

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

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

account and further, all these transactions have been duly recorded in the books of account. Hence, the above said deposits cannot be considered as “unexplained money” in the hands of the assessee. 15. The case of the A.O is that the assessee has collected the demonetized notes after ... violation of the notifications issued by RBI. Accordingly, he has taken the view that the above said amounts represents unexplained money of the assessee. I am unable to understand the rationale in the view taken by A.O. I noticed that the AO has invoked the provisions of sec.68

Smt. Karishma Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 99/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kit(It)A No.99/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Ms.Karishma Sharma The Income Tax Officer, Kailash Building No.21 International Taxation V. Ward 2(1), Bangalore. Kodichikkanahalli Main Road Kaveri Nagar, Bommanahalli Bangalore – 560 068. Pan : Balps6030E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 O R D E R This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 29.11.2021. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether Cash Deposit Of Rs.14.41 Lakh Can Be Considered As Unexplained?

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 69A

circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of Rs. 14,41,000/- as being unexplained money, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the cash deposited of Rs.14

Sri. Subhasa Poojari, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 378/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Subhasa Poojari, Vs. Ito, Old No.6, New No.18/2, Ward – 1(2)(3), Dodda Kattappa Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 008. Pan : Ehrps 6826 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chythanya V. Mudrabettu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Chythanya V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

cash deposited & other credits in bank accounts of Rs.8,56,470/- to total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money. 5. The AO further noticed that a sum of Rs.10 lacs was introduced as capital by the assessee in the partnership firm M/s. Siddivinayaka ... With regard to the remaining sum of Rs.5 lacs, the AO found no records. Hence, he treated the capital contribution of Rs.5 lacs as unexplained money u/s/69A of the Act. 6. Further the AO held that the tax liability of the assessee has to be computed as per the provisions

Sri Girigowda Dasegowda, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(8), Bengaluru

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

ITA 360/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Girigowda Dasegowda, Vs. Ito, 1/11, A Cross, Pipeline, Ward – 2[2][8], Malleshwaram Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 003. Pan : Afgpd 5520 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 69A

unexplained at assessee's hands.” 4. The AO therefore after giving credit for Rs. 5 lakhs added a sum of Rs.23,28,000/- as unexplained money deposited in bank account under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 5. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed

Devendra Rajnikant Ladhani, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circ;E-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 178/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadala & Shri Gagan Goyaldevendra Rajnikant Ladhani, 1, Om Building, Opp. Rishi Vihar Complex, Bolinj Road, Virar (W), District-Palghar-401303 Pan: Abfpl5079C ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16X, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi Respondent By : Sh. Nimesh Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 30.12.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.3,82,84,000/- Made U/S 69A Of The It. Act, 1961 As Unexplained Money On Account Of Cash Found At The Residence & From The Bank Lockers Of The Appellant During The Course Of 2 Ita No. 178/Mum/2021- Devendra Ranjikant Ladhani

For Appellant: Sh. Subhodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Sh. Nimesh Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

appeal: “The Hon. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,82,84,000/- made u/s 69A of the IT. Act, 1961 as unexplained money on account of cash found at the residence and from the bank lockers of the appellant during the course of 2 ITA No. 178/Mum/2021-

Shri. Ratanlal Pukhraj Jain, Hubli vs. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward-1(4), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 145/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sumermal D Ostawal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 69A

Learned A.O has not brought on record the conclusive evidence of excess cash held by the appellant than where is the question of unexplained money U/s 69A. A Paper Books providing all the details is attached separately. The Learned Respondent AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions ... discrepancies :- Page 5 of 8 4. From the above total, the AO noticed that there was difference of Rs.80,767/- which was treated as unexplained money u/s 69A and brought to tax u/s 11BBE @ 60%. 5. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7465/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

give license to the AO to make additions in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 unless it is proved that it is the unexplained money of the assessee which has been introduced in its books of account in the names of bogus/non-existent entities. In the instant case

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7464/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Venture, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7463/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

M/S Ksl and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (3), Mumbai

ITA 234/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

prescribed period. Assessee also challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. On the basis of assessment framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act AO initiated