← 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

Ishtiaq Ahmad Dulare, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.122/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Istiyaq Ahmad Dulare Income-Tax Officer, Shahzad Market, Jamia Urdu, Ward 4(3)(1), Aligarh. बनाम/ Vs. Medical Road, Civil Lines, Aligarh (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aifpd-8104-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Garh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 09-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27-03-2022. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee’S Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 148 Dated 30-03-2021 On The Fact That The Assessee Sold A Property For Rs.123.20 Lacs As Against Its Stamp Duty Value Of Rs.174.60 Lacs. Accordingly, The Differential Of Rs.51.40 Lacs Would Be Assessable U/S 56(2)(Viib). The Same Was Added To The Income Of The Assessee For Want

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Garh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 56(2)(viib)

response from the assessee. The Ld. AO also added the purchase amount of Rs.123.20 Lacs in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has pleaded that no reference ... made to valuation officer. The Ld. AR also assailed the addition of unexplained investment on the ground that the investment was made form accounted sources only. 3. Considering the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal (47 Taxmann.com 158), we set aside

Dy CIT, Circle -2(1), Gwalior vs. Sh. Saurabh Garg, Morena

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 366/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-2(1), Shri Saurabh Garg Gwalior. Tilak Road, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acopg-5549-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 To 2010-11 Having Common Issues Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2008-09 Wherein The Grievance Of The Revenue Is – (I) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Ii) Profit Earned From Out Of Books Investments; (Iii) Unexplained Gifts Of Shares. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 05-06-2017 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA – Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56

books on investment in properties. The assessee made investment in certain properties at Guna and Kota for Rs.707.50 Lacs which was added as unexplained investment. During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the amount of Rs.7.90 Lacs and Rs.13.50 Lacs was admitted by assessee’s father before Income Tax Settlement Commission ... shares 4.1 The assessee received gift of 368200 numbers of shares in K.S. Oil Mills Limited from Shri Vinit Garg which was considered as unexplained investment in the shares and the amount of Rs.15.39 Crores was added u/s 56 of the Act. 4.2 During appellate proceedings, the assessee filed copies

Dy CIT, Circle-2(1), Gwalior vs. Sh Saurabh Gagh, Morena

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 365/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-2(1), Shri Saurabh Garg Gwalior. Tilak Road, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acopg-5549-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 To 2010-11 Having Common Issues Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2008-09 Wherein The Grievance Of The Revenue Is – (I) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Ii) Profit Earned From Out Of Books Investments; (Iii) Unexplained Gifts Of Shares. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 05-06-2017 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA – Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56

books on investment in properties. The assessee made investment in certain properties at Guna and Kota for Rs.707.50 Lacs which was added as unexplained investment. During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the amount of Rs.7.90 Lacs and Rs.13.50 Lacs was admitted by assessee’s father before Income Tax Settlement Commission ... shares 4.1 The assessee received gift of 368200 numbers of shares in K.S. Oil Mills Limited from Shri Vinit Garg which was considered as unexplained investment in the shares and the amount of Rs.15.39 Crores was added u/s 56 of the Act. 4.2 During appellate proceedings, the assessee filed copies

Dy CIT, Circle -2(1), Gwalior vs. Sh Saurabh Garg, Morena

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 364/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-2(1), Shri Saurabh Garg Gwalior. Tilak Road, Jiwaji Ganj, Morena. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acopg-5549-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ca – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 To 2010-11 Having Common Issues Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2008-09 Wherein The Grievance Of The Revenue Is – (I) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Ii) Profit Earned From Out Of Books Investments; (Iii) Unexplained Gifts Of Shares. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior [Cit(A)] On 05-06-2017 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A

For Appellant: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CA – Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 56

books on investment in properties. The assessee made investment in certain properties at Guna and Kota for Rs.707.50 Lacs which was added as unexplained investment. During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the amount of Rs.7.90 Lacs and Rs.13.50 Lacs was admitted by assessee’s father before Income Tax Settlement Commission ... shares 4.1 The assessee received gift of 368200 numbers of shares in K.S. Oil Mills Limited from Shri Vinit Garg which was considered as unexplained investment in the shares and the amount of Rs.15.39 Crores was added u/s 56 of the Act. 4.2 During appellate proceedings, the assessee filed copies

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Periwal Enterprises Private Limited, Tilak Marg

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 213/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.174/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -2, बनाम/ B-38, Sagar Apartments Ludhiana, Punjab. 110001. Vs. 6 Tilak Marg, Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.213/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Dcit, Central Circle -2, M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana. B-38, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 29-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

well as concession for differential in CPWD rates and PWD rates is allowed to the assessee, nothing would remain to be added as unexplained investment. In the background of all these facts and respectfully following the binding judicial precedents, we delete the impugned addition in toto. The assessee succeeds

Periwal Enterprises Private Limited B-38, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg Delhi, Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, Punjab

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 174/CHANDI/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.174/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -2, बनाम/ B-38, Sagar Apartments Ludhiana, Punjab. 110001. Vs. 6 Tilak Marg, Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.213/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Dcit, Central Circle -2, M/S Periwal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana. B-38, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg Delhi. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0026-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [Cit(A)] Dated 29-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal(Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69B

well as concession for differential in CPWD rates and PWD rates is allowed to the assessee, nothing would remain to be added as unexplained investment. In the background of all these facts and respectfully following the binding judicial precedents, we delete the impugned addition in toto. The assessee succeeds

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Rithwik Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 534/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.534/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Vs. Rithiwik Projects (P) Ltd Central Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabcr5748L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 07/07/2020 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred Both In Law & On Facts Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Holding That The Reasons To Believe Are Defective & That The Re-Assessement Proceedings Are Ab Initio Void Without Adjudicating On Page 1 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, DR

initio void without adjudicating on Page 1 of 3 ITA No 534 of 2020 Rithiwik Projects P Ltd merits the issue of unexplained investments of Rs.1,71,50,000/-. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the reasons to believe are based on mere suspicion and not ascertained