Question:
I’m facing an issue where entries that I clear using Bank Clearance do not disappear from the Bank Reconciliation Tool.
Here is what I observed:
When I clear vouchers from Bank Clearance, the clearance date gets updated, but the same entries still appear in the Bank Reconciliation Tool.
In the “Select Vouchers to Match” popup, only vouchers with blank clearance dates appear.
The vouchers that I already cleared do not show in the list.
Even when I choose Action → Add / Update Bank Transaction for a statement line, ERPNext shows a “Matched” message, but the entry still does not disappear.
It seems that Bank Clearance only sets the clearance date, but the system still expects reconciliation to happen through the Bank Reconciliation Tool.
Bank statement lines that have no matching Payment Entry also show the same “Matched” popup, which makes the behavior confusing.
My Questions:
Is this the expected behavior of ERPNext?
Should matching always be done only through the Bank Reconciliation Tool and not via Bank Clearance?
Why does ERPNext show a “Matched” message even when no actual match happened?
For bank entries that exist in the statement but not in ERPNext, what is the correct workflow?
How should we handle entries that were cleared earlier but are still visible in the tool?
Any guidance on the correct process flow or if I’m misunderstanding something will be helpful.
I believe this is the correct behavior. If you want entries to show and be reconciled in Bank Reconciliation tool then do not mark them as cleared in Bank Clearance.
Stick to marking items as cleared via Bank Reconciliation.
I’m not sure what you mean in number 3.
For bank entries in the statement but not in ERPNext you’d create either a matching Journal Entry or Payment Entry then match it or use the “create voucher” function in Bank Reconciliation.
If you want to match an item in Bank Reconciliation that’s not showing up, you’ll want to remove the clearance date from Bank Clearance, the match it in Bank Reconciliation.
Only entries that have not been marked as cleared will show in Bank Reconciliation.
I would keep Bank Clearance and the Bank Reconciliation Tool as two separate workflows here.
A practical way to prove what is happening is to take one statement line and one voucher, then compare these fields before changing anything:
- bank account
- posting date / transaction date
- voucher type and voucher no.
- payment entry or journal entry reference
- debit / credit amount
- party type and party
- clearance date
- bank transaction reference
- reconciliation or match status
If Bank Clearance sets only the clearance date, that explains why the voucher no longer appears in the Select Vouchers to Match popup, while the imported bank statement line can still remain visible in the reconciliation tool. In that case, the safer operating rule is to pick one path for a given bank account period: either clear through Bank Reconciliation, or use Bank Clearance knowingly and do not expect the same line to match again in the tool.
For statement lines that have no ERPNext payment/journal entry, I would create the missing Payment Entry / Journal Entry or use the tool’s create-voucher path, then match from the reconciliation tool. I would not remove clearance dates in bulk until a small fake-row or header-only test confirms which field is causing the line to stay visible.
hanks, this helps clarify the separation between the two workflows.
However, I think the core confusion is still around system behavior consistency.
From what I understand:
Setting clearance date removes the voucher from matching
But the bank statement line still remains visible in the reconciliation tool
And in some cases, the system shows a “Matched” message without an actual link being established
This creates a mismatch between system state and user expectation.
So I want to confirm:
Is it expected that a cleared entry can still appear in the reconciliation tool without being actually matched?
What exactly triggers the “Matched” status internally — is it clearance date or actual reconciliation mapping?
I’ll validate this with a controlled test (single voucher + single statement line), but if this is expected behavior, then it may need clearer indicators in the UI to avoid confusion.