← 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

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Lokhandwala Infrasatructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 236/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 236/Mum/2015 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Lokhandwala Dcit Cen. Cir.– 8(3), Infrastructurepvt. Ltd. R. No. 659, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ 54A, Jindal Mansion, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaace1568L (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Mani Jain, Ld. Ars सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.08.2014, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-38, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

only mentioned about offering of additional cash of Rs.1 crore towards unaccunted scrap sale. Thus, he held that balance cash cannot be considered as unexplained money considering the fact that members of the family who are residing in the same place of search had sufficient cash balance in the books ... nothing but working of commission payable to the commission agent and therefore, the amount mentioned in the seized material cannot be treated as unexplained money to be added as undisclosed income. Accordingly, order of Ld. CIT (A) is upheld and ground no. 3 & 4 is hereby dismissed

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

arise. 6. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 15 lacs u/s 69A as unexplained money of Appellant Company and on the alleged ground that unexplained money was received by the Appellant Company without providing to the Appellant Company any concrete