“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

Dinkar Pandurang Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42 (2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5749/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dinkar Pandurang Ito 26(1)(4), Sawant, [Now Ward 42(2)(2), 3/A/401, N G Silver Spring Co- Mumbai] Op. Housing Society, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Nr. Hindustan Bank, Mumbai - 400051 Ramdeo Park, Mira (E). Thane – 401107. Pan: Artps7224E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Neelam Jadhav, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. It Appears From The Impugned Order That The Ld. Commissioner Though Mentioned In Para No. 4 About The Opportunities Provided To The Assessee By Issuing Various Notices, However Ultimately Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine, Sustaining The Additions Of Rs.15,59,824/- Being Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Rs. 25,000/- As Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Neelam Jadhav, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 250Section 68

assessee by issuing various notices, however ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine, sustaining the additions of Rs.15,59,824/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the act and Rs. 25,000/- as income from other 2 Mr. Dinkar Pandurang Sawant sources, made by the AO vide

Narendra Shantilal Bapna, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4198/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

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 ... Narendra Shantilal Bapna 15. We noticed earlier that the AO has assessed the Sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the purchase of shares made in an earlier year has been accepted by the revenue. The sale

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati vs. Satish Jalan, Shillong

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 62/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Itat. 3. There Are Currently More Than 300 Time Barred Assessment & 200 Penalty Cases Are Pending In This Office. Due To Shortage Of Manpower It Was Delayed In The Filing Of Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat.

Section 131Section 250Section 68

amount of loan amounting to Rs.2,50,00,000/- credited in the books of the assessee was added by the Ld. AO as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 2.2 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who granted relief on the basis of following

Lourembam Victor Singh, Imphal (Manipur) vs. ACIT Circle, Imphal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 68

proof has not been met for this particular amount of Rs. 1,88,82,000/-. Therefore, applying the well- established legal principle that unexplained cash credits are liable to be added to income, this addition is hereby confirmed. 1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following

Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani, Jamnagar vs. ITO, Ward 2(7), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 407/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 407/Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Harunbhai Noormamd Jindani The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(7), Kishan Chowk, Behind Bodyg, Vs. Jamnagar-Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar - 361001 Jamnagar-361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anxpj4114C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2025 Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 20.09.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S. 144 Of The Act, On 11.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

hands of the assessee on account of cash deposited in banks of Rs. 12,48,000/-, and cash so deposited was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 9. Further, on verification of the bank account statements, it was noticed

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

treated as sham transaction and total amount of Rs.9,44,74,3941/- should not be added as income on account of unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Assessee was also asked to show cause why.an amount of Rs.64,78,080/-, being 7.5% of commission on this LTCG, should ... shareholders, SEBI and the report of the investigation wing etc came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.2,36,97,101/- represents unexplained cash credit to be taxed u/s 68 of the IT Act 1961. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

Case of CIT v/s Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del) it has been held that “AO made the addition towards unexplained cash credit on the basis that it was the assessee's money(Rs.22,97,000/-) which was deposited in cash in the account of FBSL

Dipesh Chandrakant Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 884/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Sukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 199CSection 68

appeal are as under:- “1. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 81,89,200 u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit in bank accounts. 2 The Learned CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the facts that the Amount deposited in respective bank accounts

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Himatnagar vs. N M & Company, Khedbrahma

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 68

assessee’s bank accounts. Due to non-compliance before the Assessing Officer, the entire amount of Rs.43.82 crores was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee. ITA No. 1582/Ahd/2025 with C.O. No. 74/Ahd/2025 Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order

DCIT, Kolkata vs. M/S New Charan Kanwal Finance Company Pvt., Kolkata

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

ITA 434/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/-, being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed squarely to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the payer party ... vide order passed u/s 153A of the Act on 29.03.2022 and the additions were made of ₹25,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act being unsecured loan taken by the assessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal

M/S. Tedium Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue

ITA 1214/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

name and address, PAN, Form-18, bank statement, audited balance sheet etc. before the AO. Finally the AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit to the income of the assessee. 4. The CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order ... note that the allotment of shares, conversion of this liability in such share capital and share premium could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Act. The court also took note of the fact that the revenue had filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme

Belle Hospitality, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5563/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Belle Hospitality, Ito Ward 41(2)(1), Basement & Ground Floor, Kautilya Bhavan Filix Building Lbs Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Bhandup West, Mumbai – 400 078 Pan: Aakfb5304J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ddl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Ao Vide Order Dated 15.12.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.15,00,000/- & Rs.60,658/- For Unexplained Cash Credit/Non-Genuine Loans U/S 68 Of The Act & The Interest Paid Respectively, However, Allowed The Set Off Of Rs.10,16,395/- As Claimed By The Assessee. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice Dated 23.01.2015 U/S 148 Of The Act, Which Resulted Into Passing The Reassessment Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012

Ratan N Motwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5532/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad- CIT

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

operative Housing Society Ltd. as no confirmed was filed by the assessee, the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- earlier was treated as unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.08.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed

Preity G Zinta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4199/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Preity G Zinta Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, 403 Parishram, Ward 4(3)(1), Smt. Nergish Dutt Road, Mumbai Bandra West Vs. Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaapz2650B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita Nara, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi and Ms. Vinita Nara, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

assessee was subjected to proceedings u/s. 148 culminating into addition of Rs.10,84,27,700/- u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit. 4. Case of the assessee is that in preceding years that is, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, due to financial distress, she had borrowed huge ... unaccounted money of the assessee which is paid in return to circular sham transactions through cheque. He thus, treated the same as unexplained cash credit to make an addition u/s. 68 of the Act. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We have also

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -41(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed

ITA 4098/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining and adding the Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of Rs. 8,15,000/-.” 2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite the service of notice through e- mail as well as RPAD on more

Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1) Delhi, Delhi vs. Shankarraj Impex Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 4443/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147

thus, partly allowed.” 4. Learned counsel further submits that both the lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits in A.Y. 2015-16 as well. Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. 5. Be that as it may, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee ... same shall not be treated as a precedent. 9. So far as the assessee’s further ground seeking to reverse section 68 unexplained cash credits addition (supra) is concerned. We hereby conclude that the same prima facie forms part of the assessee’s business turnover only i.e. emanating from cash

Income Tax Officer Ward 23(1), New Delhi vs. Shankarraj Impex Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 4442/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147

Income Tax Officer Ward-23(1) Delhi, New Delhi vs. Shankarraj Impex Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4441/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147

Shankarraj Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward - 23(1), Delhi

ITA 4105/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 147