← 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

Nirpal Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2177/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 69A

property, however, he held that the source still remains unexplained. Accordingly, he treated the entire cash deposits amounting to Rs.52,75,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A which was added to total income of the assessee. 3. Ld. Assessing Officer further noted from the copy of rent agreement wherein mentions rent ... Book held that the assessee had not filed any confirmation relating to the deposit in the bank treated the amount of Rs. 5275000/- as unexplained money liable to be taxed U/s 69 of the Income Tax Act. We are now in appeal and submit as under. We have filed

Parveen Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(4), New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

ITA 1266/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

such cash has been received and deposited. The assessee failed to furnish the same therefore the entire cash deposits in the bank account becomes unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A. Since the amount is credited into the books of the assessee the amount is liable ... explain the source of the cash deposits in the Bank accounts of the assessee, therefore, entire cash deposits in the Bank accounts becomes unexplained money in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) also alternatively held that since

Parveen Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(4), New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided against the assessee

ITA 1265/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

such cash has been received and deposited. The assessee failed to furnish the same therefore the entire cash deposits in the bank account becomes unexplained money in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A. Since the amount is credited into the books of the assessee the amount is liable ... explain the source of the cash deposits in the Bank accounts of the assessee, therefore, entire cash deposits in the Bank accounts becomes unexplained money in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) also alternatively held that since

Anita Chaudhary, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Khatuli

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

passed ex-parte assessment order under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and made additions of Rs.11,07,160/- on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and further made addition of Rs.756/- on account of interest earned. The income was computed at Rs.11

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gtm Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and

ITA 3797/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

documents while holding that there was no proof of passing of money to the assessee while ignoring the fact that process of passing of unexplained money is corroborated by seized documents and as such handing over of undisclosed transactions is not reduced to documentation. 3 ITA Nos. 3577 & 3797 /Del/2010

M/S. Gtm Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and

ITA 3577/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

documents while holding that there was no proof of passing of money to the assessee while ignoring the fact that process of passing of unexplained money is corroborated by seized documents and as such handing over of undisclosed transactions is not reduced to documentation. 3 ITA Nos. 3577 & 3797 /Del/2010

Leela Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1423/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

Hence, the appellant’s explanation is not maintainable and is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 15 lacs u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE as unexplained money is hereby confirmed.” 6. Ld. Counsel for assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and relied upon certain decisions of different benches

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

which was not do of this error on the part of Assessing Officer, the tax required to be collected from expenditure or unexplained money cannot be lawfully collected as the addition on perquisite" cannot be sustained in appellate proceedings before the Appellate proceedings before the appellate Authorities. 2. That there