“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

Raghuvirsinh Harishchandrasinh Zala, Halvad vs. ITO, WD-4, Morbi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed

ITA 298/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Viral Vajani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

Officer has erred on facts and in law in making addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- by treating cash deposited in bank account as unexplained investment u/s. 69 ITA 298-Rjt-2024 (AY — 2017-18) SH. RAGHUVIRSINH H. ZALA r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner ... Income Rs. 3,04,413/- Less: Deduction under Chapter-VIA Rs. 32,121/- Total Income Rs. 2,72,290/- Addition: Rs. 10,00,000/- Unexplained investment u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Assessed Income Rs. 12,72,290/- 4. That the assessee filed an appeal against the order

Saurabh Jayant Bhaga, Raigad Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2718/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 53,14,000/- u/s 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment made in flat. 3) The Honorable Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding addition ... Consequently, the decision of the AO for making the following additions ie: (a) Rs.53,14,000/- worth of investment in immovable property is found unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act; (b) Addition of Rs.5,15,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income

Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, Panvel Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2717/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Atul Vijay Madan, Nashik vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1529/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1529/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vijay Madan, V The Dcit, 2 Pooja Apartment, Behind S Circle-1, Nashik. Karwa Mangal Karyalay, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde– Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.45,00,000 Made By The A.O. U/S 69 Towards Alleged Unexplained Loan

Section 132Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Ramzan Kokani as mentioned therein as loan from the assessee and the same are llable to be added to the assessee's income as unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly amount of Rs.45,00,000/- is added to the total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings

Akhila Devi Javvadi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kothagudem

ITA 204/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us :

Section 141Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

First Appellate Authority is not justified in not discussing the grounds raised in appeal questioning the addition of Rs.52,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act.” 2. Succinctly stated, the A.O. based on information that though the assessee during the subject year was in receipt

Late Kalpana Anant Joshi, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward-27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5753/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the CIT(A) which was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 25/09/2024. Now, the present appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal against the aforesaid order passed by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer who has erred in adding Rs.66,87,751/- to the total income of the appellant as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee did not file return of income

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 15,88,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment being cash deposits in bank account. 5. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer may please be deleted. 6. Appellant craves leave

Balvir Mohan Mistry, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Ranidan Meghraj Gandhi, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 886/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri P M Jagasheth, C.A

Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.49,50,000/-on account of unexplained investment as the assessee' had not furnished any cogent evidences before the AO and therefore he could not prove the source of the fund for acquisition ... justified in making an addition of Rs. 49,50,000/- u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment in immovable property. Hence, the addition made by the A,O. is deleted. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal

Shivratna Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, 41(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 956/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Uodal Raj SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Iyer

Section 142(1)Section 148ASection 69Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

Appeals) has erred in sustaining the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of time deposits invested by the society as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the order passed by the Ld. AO for a PAN (ABLFS9654C ... Shivratna Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. PAN to the extent of addition made by the Ld. AO on account of “unexplained money” under section 69A and “unexplained investment” under section 69 of the Act. 11. With the above directions, all the appeals are set aside to the file

Akhil Kumar, Bhopal vs. ITO (It & Tp), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 35/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2012-13 Akhil Kumar Ito (It & Tp) C-1/110, Area Colony, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Baqpk6099G Assessee By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2025

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

total income of Rs. 15,75,740/- after making two additions, namely (i) addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment, and (ii) addition of Rs. 4,500/- on account of interest on FDR not disclosed in return. Aggrieved, by first addition ... proceedings conducted by lower authorities, we find that the AO has made impugned addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment on the basis of (i) the notings found in ‘BI-14’ claimed to have been found and impounded during survey u/s 133A upon Page

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

/147 of I.T. Act on 28-01-2016 determining total income of Rs.21,59,025/- by making the following addition:- i ii iii iv Unexplained investment in construction of boundary wall | Rs.2,03,925/- claimed in sale of Pushkar land Unexplained investment in construction of boundary wall | Rs.3 ... addition sustained the relevant finding from the assessment order is reproduced herein below : (i) Addition of Rs.2,03,925/-on account of Unexplained investment in construction of boundary wall claimed in sale of Pushkar land :- During the course of assessment proceedings from the analysis of Trading a/c of property business

Mohammedaarif Yunusbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1) (Previously Ward-1(2)(3)), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69A

payments from such bank accounts and only a peak balance could have been assessed. b) assessing an amount of Rs.2,61,68,000/- as unexplained investment of the appellant. The addition so made is prayed to be deleted. 3. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend substitute or withdraw

Mohammedaarif Yunusbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 15/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69A

Mohammedaarif Yunusbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1) (Previously Ward-1(2)(3)), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 14/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 69A

Padmanabhan Sriramulu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2963/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2963/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Padmanabhan Sriramulu, The Assistant Commissioner Of 77/1, Thirupalli Street, Vs. Income Tax, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Room No.223, 2Nd Floor, Chennai – 600 079. Bsnl Tower Ii, No.16, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Abhps-7297-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

make addition u/s 69 or 69A f the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc. may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned, in which ... investment, needs to be examined. In case the assessee explains the nature and source of investment, then the question of making addition towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created

Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, Allahabad vs. Deputy/ACIT(Central), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

Because the learned AO as well as CIT(A) were not legally justified in making the addition of Rs.1.85 crores as unexplained investment for the purchase of property, under section 69 and charging the same to the penal rate of tax under section 115 BBE of the Act. 6. Because ... survey dated 18.01.2018 and 01.02.2018 and the latter dated 22.10.2019 and the reply dated 15.06.2021 while making the addition of Rs. 1.85 lacs as unexplained investment for purchase of property, and charging it to the penal rate of tax u/s JI5BBE of the Act. 3. Because no reason much less

Mahadev Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 99/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

Section 153CSection 282Section 69

Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the pen drive was seized from third person premises ITA No. 103-105/Hyd/2025

Leela Ram Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 105/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

Section 153CSection 282Section 69

Leela Ram Choudhary, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 104/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.103-105/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) Leela Ram Choudhary Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan :Ahapc0813E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.99/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Mahadev Choudhary Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan : Aprpc4388M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.100/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Ashok Kumar Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax Central Circle-2(1) [Pan :Hnypk3276C] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 02/05/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri A.V.RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala

Section 153CSection 282Section 69