“unexplained expenditure”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69CSection 69C3,276 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained expenditure is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained expenditure

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

712

citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT

430

citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT

216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court

325

citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. M.K. Brothers

163 ITR 249 · 1987 · High Court

262

citing judgments

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT

84 Taxmann.com 195 · 2017 · Supreme Court

204

citing judgments

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

CIT v. La Medica

250 ITR 575 · 2001 · High Court

150

citing judgments

When purchases are shown to be non-genuine, the entire amount is to be disallowed as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, irrespective of whether the goods were procured from alternative sources.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT

58 Taxmann.com 44 · 2015 · High Court

140

citing judgments

When an assessee makes alleged bogus or hawala purchases but subsequently makes genuine sales from those purchases, the addition to income should be restricted only to the estimated profit embedded in such transactions, not the entire purchase value.

N.K. Industries Ltd. v. DCIT

72 Taxmann.com 289 · 2016 · High Court

127

citing judgments

When there is a categorical finding that purchases are bogus and from fictitious suppliers, the Assessing Officer is justified in making a 100% addition of the bogus purchase amount under Section 69C, rather than restricting the disallowance to merely the profit margin. This position has been upheld by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the assessee's SLP.

Judgments citing unexplained expenditure

Raheja Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 19, Delhi

ITA 2283/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No.2283/Del/2023 (A.Y 2011-12) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshav Kunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No.2284/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13) Raheja Developers Limited Vs Acit W4D-204/5, Keshavkunj, Central Circle-19 Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi New Delhi, Pan: Aaacr0468E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Ca& Sh. P. K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

commission paid to the parties u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 31/12/2018 and 26/12/2019 respectively for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13, Assessee preferred two Appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 12/06/2023 dismissed

Abdul Razaque, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed while ground nos

ITA 84/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Abdul Razaque, Vs. Acit, 903, Badi Omti, Jabalpur, M.P. Circle-2(1), Jabalpur Pan:Afgpr9967N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Jcit(A), Mysore, Wherein The Ld. Addl Jcit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 19.11.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)- Mysore Was Not Justified In Deciding The Legal Ground That Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine The Reasons Of (I) Return Filed After 7.11.2016' & Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period & Addition Was Made On Some Other Issue Which Was Not The Reason For Selection & Without Taking Any Approval From Higher Authorities. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)-Mysore Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,48,584 By Ignoring All The Evidences & Documents By Simply Observing That No New Documents Were Filed Even Though Documents Which Are Filed Are Sufficient & Self-Explanatory & The Order Of Learned Cit Appeals Is Passed In A Mechanical Manner, Without Any Application Of Mind & Appears That It Was Passed With Predetermined Mind.

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs. 10,200/- on account of unexplained expenditure in the purchase of a Gas Cylinder. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. Addl JCIT(A). The ld. Addl JCIT

Ranjeet Singh, Lucknow vs. D/ACIT-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 331/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit / Acit-4, 459, Ameer Nagar, Aishbagh, Lucknow-226001 Lucknow-226004 Pan: Afsps0877G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed On 21.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding An Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period As Unexplained, The Same Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 02. Because The Entire Cash Deposited In Bank Is Part Of The Sale Proceeds & Realization Of Debts, The Addition Made Is Purely On Suspicions & Surmises, Such Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, Be Deleted. 03. Because There Being No Change In The Method Of Accounting Regularly Followed By The Assessee & The Same Having Being Consistently Accepted, The Books Of Account Having Not Been Rejected, The Stock Tally Not Disputed, The Accounts Being Tax Audited, There Was No Reason For The Ao To Disbelieve The Cash Deposited In The Bank Treating The Same As Unexplained, The Addition Of Rs.31,90,000/- Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 04. Because The Amount Of Rs.31,90,000/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank Being Part Of Sale Proceeds & Cash Receipts Already Charged To Revenue For The Purposes Of Computation Of Income, Separate Addition Of The Same Has Resulted Into Double Taxation, Not Permitted By Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)

produced any documentary evidence to prove the expenses claimed by it. Accordingly, the AO was justified in making the disallowance on account of unexplained expenditure also. 6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is fairly clear from a perusal of notice under section

Naresh Bansilal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 4

ITA 643/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: 04/09/2025

Section 132(4)Section 56(2)(x)

unexplained examined in the case, which may be in the nature of unexplained examined in the case, which may be in the nature of unexplained expenditure 69A of the Act inviting higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE 69A of the Act inviting higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE

Firoz Alam, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur

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

ITA 346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalfiroz Alam, Income Tax Officer, Quila Nawab Ganj, Ward-3(3), Saharanapur. Chakrata Road, Vs. Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001. Pan-Afspa9199P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10273096 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment Was Reopened On The Basis Of The Information That Assessee Has Made Transaction Of Rs. 94,76, 190/- With A Company Who Was Indulged In Purchases & Sales Only On Papers Without Actual Moment Of Goods. Accordingly, The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Passed & Notice U/S 148 Was Issued After Obtaining The Approval From The Competent Authorities. During The Firoz Alam Vs. Ito Course Of Reassessment Proceedings, The Assessee Never Appeared Nor Filed Any Reply Before The Ao And, Therefore, The Ao Proceed To Complete The Assessment Exparte By Making The Addition Of Rs.94,76,190/- As Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Towards The Purchases Made From Two Parties.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 221(1)Section 69C

reply before the AO and, therefore, the AO proceed to complete the assessment exparte by making the addition of Rs.94,76,190/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act towards the purchases made from two parties. 3. Against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Vipulkumar Parsottam Padmani, Surat vs. ITO, Circle 3(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with order as to cost

ITA 611/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 69C

dated 20.12.2019The A.O. has passed the order u/s143(3) of the Income Tax Act and made addition on account of unexplained Expenditure u/s 69Cof Rs.4,04,275/-and raised the demand of Rs.4,48,820/-vide order dated 20.12.2019 of the Income Tax Act. 8.2 The ground raised ... madefor purchase of Audi. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,04,275/- is added back to the total income of the appellant on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income tax Act 1961 by the AO. 8.3 Further the appellant has made rectification application u/s154

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 675/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

आIT A Nos.56 to 61/JP/2025 Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायाधी, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

will have application. The incomes mentioned under these sections are not specific to any head of income. Section 69C even clearly mentions that such unexplained expenditure will not be deductible under any head of income. Loans given / stock in hand / loan received etc. are otherwise not taxable as these ... income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Section

Sanjay Kumar Karnani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur, Jodhpur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Shri Ambica Garments, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Cental Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 56/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 153ASection 250Section 68

income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore

Mukul Hasteer, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

amounting to Rs. 1.614 lakhs remain unverified. Hence, Rs. 1,61,400/- is added to the total income of the assessee u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure. The provision of tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961are applicable in this case. Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated

Raghav Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3215/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

concluded that the assessee had distributed cash of various denominations to voters and thus, made addition of Rs.17 Crs. u/s.69C of the Act, as unexplained expenditure. The AO had also taken support from a WhatsApp message sent from the assessee’s mobile phone to Mr.Somu and analyzed those SMS messages ... hence, concluded that the assessee has incurred a sum of Rs.17 Crs. for distribution of cash to voters and which is nothing but unexplained expenditure taxable u/s.69C of the Act. 9.5 We have given out thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the AO and we ourselves do not subscribe

Raghav Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 29, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 3214/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2309/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

Credit (Section 68), Unexplained Investments (Section 69), Unexplained Money (Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc. not fully disclosed in books of account (Section 69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The requirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of evidence and burden of proof are also

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 13, Delhi

ITA 2308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

ITA 2306/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68

Deepak Agarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, Delhi

ITA 2305/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 153ASection 68