← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Sanjeev Malhotra, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 411/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 411/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra बनाम/ Room No 228 First Floor, 298-A Pannu Farm House, Pakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Backside Hotel Keys, Kiran Vihar Vs. Ludhiana.141012 Ludhiana 141012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Achpm-4381-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 27-03-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Unexplained Money For Rs.237.23 Lacs For Want Of Any Effective

For Appellant: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

best judgment basis u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 27-03-2022. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of unexplained money for Rs.237.23 Lacs for want of any effective defense from the assessee. Considering this fact and in view of submissions made by the assessee during

Shaligram Infra Projects LLP ( Ltd. Liability Partnership), Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 233/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarit(Ss)A No.167/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Vs. The Jcit (Osd) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Central Cir.2(2) B/H. Dishman House Ahmedabad. Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad. Pan: Acpfs 7047 A It(Ss)A No.194,195 & 196/Ahd/2021 Asstt.Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 & Asst.Year : 2018-19 The Jcit (Osd) Vs. Shaligram Infra Projects Llp Central Cir.2(2) 4Th Floor, Office No.401-402 Ahmedabad. B/H. Dishman House Opp: Sankalp Grace Ii, Ambli Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

offer any credible explanation or confirmation. The CIT(A), therefore, upheld the AO’s addition of Rs. 1 crore under section 69A for unexplained money received. 16.2 At the same time, the assessee argued before the CIT(A) that such investments and receipts should be telescoped against the estimated undisclosed ... which was also not recorded in the books. In absence of any confirmation or explanation, the Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained money under section 69A. 23.2 Before CIT(A) The assessee denied any undisclosed investments, contending that the seized papers were mere rough notings of a broker

Kavya Avenues LLP, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

ITA 363/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 351/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle – 1 5Th Floor, Direct Taxes Building Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. M/S. Kavya Avenues Llp 7-5-64, Ground Floor Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam – 530003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aarfk7782J] (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 363/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) M/S. Kavya Avenues Llp 7-5-64, Ground Floor Opp. Axis Bank Pandurangapuram Visakhapatnam – 530003 V. Acit - Central Circle – 1 Income Tax Office Pratyakshakar Bhavan Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aarfk7782J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 12.08.2025 04.09.2025

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

claim of assessee firm that the alleged cash receipts did not belong to it, thereby added an amount of Rs.4,31,77,430/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 1115BBE of the Act to the total income of the assessee as detailed in the assessment order. Further

Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 355/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 355/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-1(1), Pan: Anqpy8915K Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Mv Prasad, Ca ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 04/09/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

subsequent show cause notices issued to the assessee, the Ld. AO treated the cash deposits of Rs. 11,02,370/- as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act and taxed the same U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO assessed the 4 Durga Srinivasarao Yadlapalli vs. ITO total ... erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the AO’s action of treating the cash deposits as unexplained money U/s. 69A of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,02,370/-. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action

Channan Singh, Sangrur vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam, Punjab

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 740/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.740/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Channan Singh Ito Ward Sunam बनाम/ 125, Ward No 7, Koko Majri, Sunam Mata Modi Road, Preet Nagar Vs. Sangrur-148028 Sunam, Sangrur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Cxups-2467-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

amount of Rs.7.50 Lacs was deposited on 30-04-2011. The Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee as unexplained money for want of any evidences as forthcoming from the assessee. The declared agricultural income of Rs.3.50 Lacs was assessed as ‘Nil’ for the same very