← 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

Balasaheb Kushaba Nivangune, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Pune

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

ITA 2791/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Balasaheb Kushaba Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Ninvangune, S. No.41, Plot No.41, Jadhav Nagar, Vadagaon Budruk, Pune- 411041. Pan : Afmpn4866Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 28.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 19.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.12,69,000/- On Account Of Money Deposited In Cash In Bank Account During

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

addition confirmed by Ld. 3 CIT(A)/NFAC at Rs.12,60,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit during the demonetization period and unexplained investment in gold jewellery of Rs.5,12,181/-. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to certain case laws and paper book running into ... Accordingly, it is clear that the AO rightly made additions of Rs.12,60,000/- on account of unexplained money and Rs.5.12.181/- on account of unexplained investment. In view of the failure of the appellant in substantiating the above mentioned transactions, grounds of appeal No.1 & 2 presented by the appellant

Sangeetha Duraisamy, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

ITA 525/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.525/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Sangeetha Duraisamy, The Income Tax Officer, No.2/369, Manjulam Pallam, International Taxation Ward, Vellalapatti, Coimbatore. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 012 [Pan: Etspd8813H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

action u/s 147 was taken by the department. After conducting its enquiry and investigations, the Ld. AO made addition of Rs.15,18,466/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 and another amount of Rs.5,56,500/- on account of as unexplained income from other sources u/s 56. As regards the addition ... through its grounds of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs.15,18,466/- made by the Ld.AO on the premise that the same represented unexplained investments in cash in the impugned property. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though the amount of consideration in the sale deed

Mohit Sukhija, New Delhi vs. Nfa, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4661/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

submitted that the AO has not doubted the sales declared thus, the cash deposit out of such cash sales could not be held as unexplained investment. Ld. AR argued that when sales have already been offered for tax, the cash generated out of such sales could not be doubted