← All Phrases

“unexplained investment”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69Section 695,821 judgments

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

Leading authorities on unexplained investment

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.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

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. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah
218 ITR 239 · 1996 · Supreme Court
149
citing judgments

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.

CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.
192 ITR 287 · 1991 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

Judgments citing unexplained investment

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Himatnagar, Himatnagar vs. Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 934/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, Ward-1, बनाम/ Asian Parivar, V/S. Himatnagar. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D & C.O No.18/Ahd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.934/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalidas Jivabhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Asian Parivar, बनाम/ Ward-1, V/S. Nr. Mahakali Mandir Road, Himatnagar. Himatnagar-383001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Accpp5913D

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

into the partnership firm. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 69 of the Act, treating Rs. 14,30,00,000/- as unexplained investment, taxable under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act were also initiated separately. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order ... deleting the addition of Rs. 14,30,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in the capital introduced by the assessee in M/s. Gokul Agrotech. The facts are largely undisputed. The assessee introduced capital of Rs. 14.30 crore

Nanjundapuram Sethupathy Kalidas, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 779/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nanjundapuram Sethupathy Kalidas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15-A, Annamadam Lane, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Nanjundapuram, Coimbatore 641 036. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ankpk0170C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 321 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Along With Medical Reports. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 69

dated 28.03.2016 and determined total income of the assessee at ₹.43,59,887/- by making addition of ₹.12,89,455/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and also disallowed deduction under section 54F of the Act amounting to ₹.27,89,392/-. On appeal

ACIT, Circle, Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Abhishek Rajendrakumar Mundra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3929/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3929/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Acit, Circle, Mumbai V/S. Abhishek Rajendrakumar 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal बिाम Mundra Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, C-28, Ameya Building, Mumbai-400012 Behind Ymca, Dn Nagar, Po Azad Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm5067H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी प्रनि आपत्ति सुं./ Co No. 100/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3929/Mum/2024) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Abhishek Rajendrakumar V/S. Acit, Circle, Mumbai बिाम Mundra 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal C-28, Ameya Building, Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Behind Ymca, Dn Nagar, Mumbai-400012 Po Azad Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpm5067H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)erred in deleting the addition of Rs.59,74,150/-for A.Y 2016-17 as unexplained investment u/s 68 overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its. unaccounted income