← 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., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Light House Movie Makers LLP, Hyderabad

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

ITA 319/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.297/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2015-16) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Shri Atchi Reddy Kovvuri, Hyderabad Pan: Adopk6018R (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.318 & 319/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21) Vs. M/S. Light House Movie Makers Llp, Hyderabad. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) Pan: Aagfl8979H (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr 18/11/2025 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G, A.М. : These Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, All Dated 19.11.2024 For The

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153C

seized during the course of search and therefore, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment towards cash loans repaid by the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Therefore it is submitted by the Ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has considered relevant seized material seized during

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Light House Movie Makers LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 318/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.297/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Atchi Reddy Kovvuri, Vs. Hyderabad Tax, Pan : Adopk6018R Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.318 & 319/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Light House Movie Makers Vs. Llp, Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aagfl8979H Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessees By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, All Dated 19.11.2024 For The

For Respondent: Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153C

seized during the course of search and therefore, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment towards cash loans repaid by the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Therefore it is submitted by the Ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has considered relevant seized material seized during

DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Atchi Reddy Kovuuri, Hhyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 297/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.297/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Atchi Reddy Kovvuri, Vs. Hyderabad Tax, Pan : Adopk6018R Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.318 & 319/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Light House Movie Makers Vs. Llp, Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aagfl8979H Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessees By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha G, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, All Dated 19.11.2024 For The

For Respondent: Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153C

seized during the course of search and therefore, the Assessing Officer made additions in the assessment towards cash loans repaid by the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Therefore it is submitted by the Ld. DR that the Assessing Officer has considered relevant seized material seized during

Saryu Devi, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 251/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.251/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Saryu Devi…..………...…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant W/O Hira Nath Singh, Neori, Vikas, Sadar Ranchi, Jharkhand- 835217. [Pan: Geppd1201D] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi…..….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. K. Choudhury, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 10.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Lady, Residing In A Village Area. She Had Not Filed Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021–22 As, According To Her, She Had No Taxable Income. The Assessee Was Not Registered On The Income-Tax E-Filing Portal During The Relevant Period. Her E-Filing Registration Was Done For The First Time On 09.03.2025. The Ao Received Information Through The Risk Management Strategy (Rms) That The Assessee Had Purchased Immovable Property For A Consideration Of ₹30,70,000. Based On This Information, Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Act Were Initiated After Following

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

absence of compliance, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act treating the alleged investment of ₹30,70,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order ... cannot be invoked unless actual money is found to have been paid or received. In the present case there is no unexplained money, there is no investment made by the assessee. In view of the above facts and legal position the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of Act are held

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India vs. Manav Pansari, Rajasthan, India

17. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the department

ITA 1188/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No. 1188/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur. बनाम Manav Pansari Vs. A-7, Showromm Sethi colony, TA Main Agra Road, Jaipur. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AARPP1288Q निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Khandelwal, CA. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

above said total credit amount of Rs. 3,18,41,574/-, including cash deposit of Rs. 15,90,000/- shall not be treated as unexplained money, and added to his total income. Response to the show cause notice 8. The assessee furnished following reply to the show cause notice ... proposed variation. We submit as under: 1. We disagree with your interpretation of amount deposited in Bank whether cash or cheque be treated as unexplained money. In this context we would like to say that all transactions are done from cash in hand and through account payee cheques. 2. Assessee