← 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

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1526/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

above conditions are not prevailing. There is no possibility of finding any Un-accounted money. The AO disallowing the exemption, treated the same as Unexplained money. It is surprising and astonishing to correlate the reasons given in the Assessment Order. May be with a predetermined view the Ld.AO has applied

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1525/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

above conditions are not prevailing. There is no possibility of finding any Un-accounted money. The AO disallowing the exemption, treated the same as Unexplained money. It is surprising and astonishing to correlate the reasons given in the Assessment Order. May be with a predetermined view the Ld.AO has applied

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1524/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

above conditions are not prevailing. There is no possibility of finding any Un-accounted money. The AO disallowing the exemption, treated the same as Unexplained money. It is surprising and astonishing to correlate the reasons given in the Assessment Order. May be with a predetermined view the Ld.AO has applied

Aliveni Gurram, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 1297/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1297/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Aliveni Gurram Vs. Income Tax Officer Karimnagar Ward – 2 Pan:Burpg4403M Karimnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

commission of only 1% on such gross transactions. The deposits thus do not constitute the appellant's income and cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. 5. The learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in treating the entire cash deposits of. Rs.1 ... unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without considering the business model and without any evidence to suggest the amount was unaccounted income of the appellant. 6. The authorities failed to consider that the appellant could not furnish the bank statements due to merger of State

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1648/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1647 & 1648/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, 6/24, Eb Colony, 1St Main Road, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Tambaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Aakcs6317F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)–20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

material related to the assessee also. The ld. DR further submits that the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made towards unexplained money with respect to cash deposits in bank accounts on the ground that under section 153C of the Act, the additions have to be made

Vivek Kamalkar Kadam, Virar West vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6162/MUM/2025[ 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2016-17 Vivek Kamalkar Kadam Income Tax Officer, Namasthetubunglow No. 2, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Road, Padmavati Nagar Phase 4, Near Vs. 16Z, Wagale Industrial Road, Mamta Super Market, Bolinj, Thane – 400604, Maharashtra. Virar West, Vasai – Virar, Maharashtra – 401305. [Pan: Adqpk2053E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jitendra Singh For Revenue : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-12-2025 Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Delhi, Dated 30-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of 12,50,000/- U/S 69A Of The Act, Being Part Of Loan Repayment, Ignoring That The Appellant Had Discharged The Initial Burden By Providing Comprehensive Evidence Of The Source, Including Affidavit, Confirmation, Itr & Audited Accounts Of Shri Shaikh, Which Establish Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transaction.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

that the explanation was not satisfactorily supported with documentary evidence. Accordingly, he treated the cash deposits to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and the total assessed income was determined at Rs.25,02,690/- under section ... found in the assessee's bank account and the source is unexplained/ explanation furnished is lacking, the Assessing Officer can treat these deposits as unexplained money and add them to the income under Section 69A. 6.7 An affidavit from ShGulamnabi Shaikh stating that he deposited cash into appellant's bank