“unexplained cash credit”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 687,118 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained cash credit is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained cash credit

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court

897

citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

(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.

CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278 · 2007 · Supreme Court

525

citing judgments

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

Judgments citing unexplained cash credit

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.; 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 494/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.492 To 494/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2018-19 Anil Kumar Paik……………………………..……………………………...……Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aflpp6567R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata…………....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit – Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2025 Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For Different Assessment Years I.E 2016-17 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find That The Appeals Have Been Pending For Considerable Period & No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee But Simply Filed An Application By Which The Assessee Sought An Adjournment Of The Case For Today. On Perusal Of Records, We Find That Multiple Dates Of Hearing Were Scheduled But The Assessee Failed To

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 68

scrutiny assessment, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.6,99,15,110/- with an addition of Rs.56,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), where, the appeal

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 493/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 68

Anil Kumar Paik, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 68

Om Parkash, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-3, Khanna

ITA 693/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

argued that the AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and treated the amount of Rs. 4,44,69,200/-as unexplained cash credits. We noted that the assessee has obtained copies of deposit slips and deposit form and withdrawal transfer form and on a plain reading of these

DCIT, Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. Chiranjeet Kundu, Kanchrapara

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

ITA 2060/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Ao. Thereafter, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Add Rs. 2,27,98,730/-U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 131Section 250Section 69A

above, please explain why the excess cash deposits made during the year specially during demonization period should not be treated as unexplained cash credit? Ans. It may be out of my cash sales during the year however I am unable to produce any documentary evidence." Thus, from above statement

Rajesh Kumar Dalmia, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1859/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrarajesh Kumar Dalmia, Income Tax Officer, B-3, Flat No. 803, Nandni One, Ward 6(1), Kolkata, Vs Vesu, Surat - 395007 P-7, Chowringhee Square, (Pan: Amxpd1909Q) Kolkata - 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Rajak Datta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Officer in making addition of Rs.6,50,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank account during the demonetisation period treated as alleged unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well ... 30/10/2019, 201/11/2019 & 08/12/2019 calling for specific details. After analysing the reply of the appellant, a sum of Rs. 6.50,000/- was treated as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and taxed in the hands of the appellant. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal

Sita Ram Saini, Chomu, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Vohra ( Addl. CIT) a

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 80C

cash deposits, therefore, considering the facts of the case, total of the cash deposits of Rs. 79,95,179/- was treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT. Act, 1961 and was added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved, from the said order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. Damodardas Mohanlal Chokshi, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 554/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT D.R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69B

Income Tax Act after applying provisions of section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash credits without appreciating the facts brought on record by the assessing officer in the assessment order? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee as addition for stock difference found during the survey. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 12,83,75,566/- for unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of wrong method of valuation considering Section 69B amounting

Sumit Kesarwani, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(1)(4), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 98/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sumit Kesarwani V. Ito 1(1)(F) 52/26, Naya Ganj Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Biopk6450P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 68Section 69A

following grounds of appeal: 1. Because on proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the case an addition of Rs.31,93,527/- as unexplained cash credit into the total income of the Assessee assuming the cash sales during demonetization period as bogus sales is highly arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted, reason assigned ... boolk. The assumption without any reasonable basis is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Cash sales treated as bogus and determined as "Unexplained Cash Credit" u/s 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 is not justified. The addition into total income amounting to Rs.31,93,527/- is liable to be deleted

Ahmednagar Auto and Engineering Association, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2010/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37Section 68

account of the following: a) Disallowance u/s 37 - Rs.96,84,389/- b) Addition on account of capital reserve - Rs.96,30,542/- c) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Rs.86,39,844/- d) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Rs.19,30,762/- e) Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Rs.34,32,931/- Rs.26 ... Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - 3 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee filed certain additional evidences in terms of rule 46A and it was explained that these documents could not be produced before the Assessing Officer due to personal exigencies. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC examined

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva vs. Amodini Vyapar Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1481/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Amodini Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Kalpanalaya, Avirampur, Po- 7Th Floor, Nadt Building, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Budge Budge, Vs. Kolkata-700107 Kolkata-700137, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2332G Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 14ASection 68Section 68o

against the deletion of addition of ₹3,55,65,468/- as made by the ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act towards unexplained cash credit being share capital/ share premium. 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income showing total income ... assessment under section 144 without allowing the assessee any reasonable opportunity of being heard and in adding Rs. 3,54,76000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68of the Act. Further the assessee assailed the AO in making disallowance of Rs. 88,648/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D when

Saanvi Developers & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1330/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 148Section 250

Mumbai Bench “A” was upheld by observing thus-“Tribunal held that the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the entire deposits as unexplained cash credits could not be accepted in the light of the assessement orders in the case of the beneficiaries and also in the light

Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia, Grant Road, Opp. Shalimar Cinema, Mumbai vs. ITO, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 5926/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms Kavita Nabera on behalf ofFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 250Section 68

confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 3,62,63,334/-, by treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 3. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

deposited in respondent's bank account. In view thereof, the CIT(A) found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

Kamal Clearing and Forwarding Agency Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1576/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Ramachandran, Sr. DR

Section 68

Rs.54,77,918/ of the Act of Rs.54,77,918/- on account of unexplained cash credit. on account of unexplained cash credit. 3. The Ld. AO has stated the assessee company rendered The Ld. AO has stated the assessee company rendered The Ld. AO has stated the assessee company rendered

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office 20(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3767/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

regard and oblige." 6. However, the ld. AO rejected the said contention and added the entire agricultural receipts of Rs.50,19,100/- and unexplained cash credit to be added u/s.68. 7. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee had stated as under:- “It is submitted that the appellant has shown ... assessee is genuine or not. Here in this 8 Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal case the ld. AO treated the entire agricultural receipts as unexplained cash credit, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has partly accepted the agricultural income and he has estimated the agricultural income at Rs.28,95,637/- and also accepted

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Lucknow vs. Shri Jai Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.1,36,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the I. T. Act.” (B) In this case assessment order dated 30/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer

Mr. Jai Singh, Lucknow vs. ITO, Range-2(5), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A