“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

Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1737/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 131Section 68

observed as under: “4.7 To sum up, the cash deposits amounting to Rs.35 lakhs and Rs.11 lakhs are treated as the unexplained money of the appellant u/s 69A of the Act. The appellant has made various contradictory claims regarding the source of the. cash deposits as detailed in the foregoing ... book of account, no addition can be made u/s 68. However, as detailed above, the cash deposits of Rs.46 lakhs represent the unexplained money of the appellant and are to be brought to tax u/s 69A.” 9. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record

Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Itagi, Haveri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5, Davanagere

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

ITA 593/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranprathamika Krushi Pattina The Income Tax Officer - 5 Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Itagi Shree Towers, Hadai Main Pkpssn Itagi Post, Itagi Vs. Road, Opp. Drr Hospital Ranebennur Taluk Davanagere 577002 Haveri 581115 Pan – Aabap8450D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 115BSection 5Section 68

collected the above said amount after 8.11.2016, which is not permitted. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the above said amount represents unexplained money of the assessee and assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged income tax on the above said deposit ... collections and deposits have been duly recorded in the books of account and hence, there is no reason to treat the same as unexplained money of assessee. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that merely because demonetized notes ceased to be legal tender, it does not mean that the amount collected

Surendra Hastimal Bedsa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer NFAC, Mumbai

ITA 225/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Surendra Hastimal Income Tax Officer, Bedsa, Nfac, Shop No.3, Ward – 20(3)(4), Hari Niwas, Vs. Nfac, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aebpb5502K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen B. Shetty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R

Section 144Section 270ASection 69A

bank. The AO keeping in view the taxable income of the assessee in the earlier years treated an amount of Rs.12,64,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’) and thereby framed the assessment under section

Mrs. Stella Suresh Srivastava, Mysuru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 647/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 234Section 69

sustaining the addition of Rs.79,00,000/- being the cash deposits made by the appellant in her bank account treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act, by rejecting the bonafide explanation tendered by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1 The learned

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

addition in this case. Section 69A of the IT Act reads as under : 41 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., “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 ... account in which the assessee has shown more cash in hand. Therefore, the authorities below were not justified in holding it to be unexplained money not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. At the most, the authorities below could have presumed that the assessee has spent

Ms.Sneha Nerli, Belgaum vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Belgaum

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

ITA 233/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 69A

source of cash deposit. In the absence of any substantial evidence, the AO has brought to tax the amount of Rs.10,10,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act and passed the order. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee has filed the present appeals

Sri. Govindappa, Raichur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

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

ITA 231/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

basis of the aforesaid findings, the AO treated the entire amount of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 11,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and brought the same under taxation. 3. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition since

Jjc Beach Side, Vile Parle-West vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2578/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awashty & Shri Amarjit Singhjjc Beach Side Vs. Commissioner Of Income B/2, 76, Snehadhara Tax(A) Nfac, Building, Dadabhai Delhi- 110001 Cross Road, No. 3, Vile Parle – (West) 400056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabaj4012D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Prakash Jhunhun Vala &For Respondent: S.N. Kabra

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

establish the identification of the members and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the A.O has added the impugned cash deposited during demonetization period as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Chandrkant Ramanna Shetty, Kalyan vs. ACIT, Cir 3, Kalyan

ITA 1689/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chandrakant Ramanna Shetty, Acit, Circle-3, Flat No. 306, Kalpraj Apartment, Opp 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Zojwala Petrol Pump, Bail Bazar, Vs. Road, Kalyan-421 301. Kalyan-421 301. Pan No. Ackps 4771 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Rohra, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Rohra, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR

Section 250Section 69

circumstances of the case and in the law, FAA erred in confirming impugned addition by Ld. A.O., treating the cash deposited in banks as unexplained money u/s 69 of I.T. Act., 1961 by. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, FAA erred ... preponderance of probabilities here the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate its claim of having either received the amount of the said transaction as unexplained money and has also not even been able to establish that he could himself accumulate such huge amount from the sources disclosed, therefore

Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 1603/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Alka Bharatkumar Vs. Ito – 27(1)(1) Shah, Room No. 406, 4Th 202, M-3-C, Shiv Sneh Floor, Tower No. 6, Chs, Pratiksha Nagar, Vashi Railway Station Sion (E),Mumbai- Complex, Vashi, 400022 Mumbai-400703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agpps8680P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.DR

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

submissions in respect of the sources of deposits of assessee’s mother considering the age and family back ground and treated it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and made addition to the total income and taxed u/s Mrs. Alka Bharatkumar Shah, Mumbai. 115BBE @ 60% and determined

Late Shri Navnitlal R Shah (Through Legal Representative Mrs. Fizzah Navnitlal Shah), Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7614/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalelate Shri Navnitlal R. Vs. Acit – 3(3) Shah (Through Legal Room No. 1923, Air Representative Mr. Indi Bldg, Nariman Fizzah Navnitlal Shah) Point, Mumbai – M-3, 13Th Floor, Eden 400021. Hall, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavps0171R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.C.T Mathews.Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-51, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.C.T Mathews.Sr.AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

Appeals) - 51 erred in confirming the addition made on account of cash deposited in bank to the tune of Rs.26,59,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, Late Shri Navnitlal R Shah, Mumbai. 1961. 1.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee ... confirming the addition made on account of payment of credit card dues to Bank of India to the tune of Rs.8,65,612/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 2.2 The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the payment of credit card dues were made from

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mauria Udyog Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 5571/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5571/Del/2016: Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Mauria Udyog Ltd., R. No. 107, 1St Floor, Netaji Central Circle-3, New Delhi Subhash Road, Anand Jyoti Building, Kolkata, W.B.-711204 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm9522F Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 69A

case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting t he addition of Rs.56,42,710/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money.” 2. The assessee is a flagship company of Mauria group engaged in the business of manufacturing of LPG Cylinders, Self 2 Mauria Udyog Ltd. Closing

Sri Bhageeratha Pattina Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hosadurga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Davanagere

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

ITA 646/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

collected the above said amount after 8.11.2016, which is not permitted. Accordingly, the A.O. took the view that the above said amount represents unexplained money of Sri BhageerathaPattinaSahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Hosadurga Page 6 of 9 the assessee and assessed the same u/s 68 of the Act. The A.O. also charged ... collections and deposits have been duly recorded in the books of account and hence, there is no reason to treat the same as unexplained money of assessee. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that merely because demonetized notes ceased to be legal tender, it does not mean that the amount collected

ACIT, Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad

ITA 9449/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making an addition of Rs.40,00,000/- as unexplained money while treating the witness (assessee) u/s. 118 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the assessee involved in the transaction resultingly an unreasonable finding without ... number.8, the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.40 lakhs made by the A.O. as unexplained money. 25. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of search proceedings at premises 17/6, Hanspal Industrial Complex, Mathura Road, Faridabad