← 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

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1909/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- being the sum alleged to have been given as loan to Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification ... statements recorded therein in the case of Shri O. Armugasamy and his group entities, Ld. AO added back the amount of Rs.5 Crores as unexplained investment u/s 69 and consequential interest component of Rs.45.60 Lacs was added back as undisclosed interest income of the assessee. The assessee had made disallowance

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1908/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- being the sum alleged to have been given as loan to Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification ... statements recorded therein in the case of Shri O. Armugasamy and his group entities, Ld. AO added back the amount of Rs.5 Crores as unexplained investment u/s 69 and consequential interest component of Rs.45.60 Lacs was added back as undisclosed interest income of the assessee. The assessee had made disallowance

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1907/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- being the sum alleged to have been given as loan to Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification ... statements recorded therein in the case of Shri O. Armugasamy and his group entities, Ld. AO added back the amount of Rs.5 Crores as unexplained investment u/s 69 and consequential interest component of Rs.45.60 Lacs was added back as undisclosed interest income of the assessee. The assessee had made disallowance

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1906/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- being the sum alleged to have been given as loan to Mr. O. Arumugasamy and others as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification ... statements recorded therein in the case of Shri O. Armugasamy and his group entities, Ld. AO added back the amount of Rs.5 Crores as unexplained investment u/s 69 and consequential interest component of Rs.45.60 Lacs was added back as undisclosed interest income of the assessee. The assessee had made disallowance

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. M/S Industrial Mineral Co., 100% Eou, Tuticorin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 529/CHNY/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

authored by him and hence the difference between the document value and the entry in the loose sheet cannot be assumed as the unexplained investment of assessee and thus deleted the addition. D. DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL REPRESENTED BY RECEIPT FROM SISTER CONCERN THROUGH ARBITRATION AWARD ... difference between this tally data and the debit in the profit & loss account filed along with the ROI cannot be impromptu considered as the unexplained investment of assessee. 19. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the terms of award by the arbitrator in the proper perspective and seen that

Industrial Mineral Co, 100%Eou, Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 390/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69B

authored by him and hence the difference between the document value and the entry in the loose sheet cannot be assumed as the unexplained investment of assessee and thus deleted the addition. D. DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL REPRESENTED BY RECEIPT FROM SISTER CONCERN THROUGH ARBITRATION AWARD ... difference between this tally data and the debit in the profit & loss account filed along with the ROI cannot be impromptu considered as the unexplained investment of assessee. 19. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the terms of award by the arbitrator in the proper perspective and seen that

Mr. Rajesh Govind Chouhan, Pune vs. JCIT Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2590/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2590/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Rajesh Govind Chouhan, V The Joint Commissioner Plot No.14, Shree Hari S. Of Income-Tax, Central Banglow, Nandadeep Society, Circle-1(3), Pune. Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Maharashtra. Pan: Adlpc5054E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vindo Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 14.10.2024 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per

Section 120(4)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

held that the addition of Rs.41,27,693/ made u/s 69 of the Act treating it to be unexplained investment is without any evidence or corroborative material and is purely on the basis of assumption. Thus, the addition so made by Ld. AO and that upheld ... Yashoda Properties. The limited issue for our consideration is addition made in Assessment Order of Rs.41,27,693/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in plot . The Ld.CIT(A) has applied section 69A , the relevant paragraph of Ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here under : “9. I have