← All Phrases

“cash credit addition”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 6867 judgments

The decision most relied on for cash credit addition is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (342 ITR 169), cited in 658 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on cash credit addition

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.

Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT
37 ITR 271 · 1959 · Supreme Court
567
citing judgments

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises, or conjectures, as strong suspicion does not amount to proof. The revenue authorities must rely on concrete evidence and material to frame an assessment.

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. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.
361 ITR 220 · 2014 · High Court
328
citing judgments

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd.
42 Taxmann.com 339 · 2014 · High Court
252
citing judgments

For cash credit additions under Section 68, establishing the 'identity' of a creditor requires more than just producing PAN or assessment particulars; it necessitates demonstrating their actual business operations, place of work, staff, and public recognition. This rigorous standard ensures the assessee proves the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

Judgments citing cash credit addition

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Florida Electrical Industries Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 1740/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 1740/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Vs Florida Electrical Industries Ltd., Ward-9(1), B-147, Mayapuri, Industrial Area- New Delhi-110002 1, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacf0359C Assessee By : Sh. Prempal Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1060913260(1) Dated 14.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Prempal Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Both the learned representatives next invites our attention to the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion deleting the impugned section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.5,49,49,095/- made by the Assessing Officer in his regular assessment dated 14.04.202, reading as under: “5. I have considered ... refers to amounts credited in books of account, remained unexplained then the same needs to be added. Recorded sales are not unexplained cash credits. Addition if any can be made only when the sales shown by assessee are less than the purchases shown by the buyer. E.g. : If the sales