← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for the AY 2019-

ITA 2662/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2662, 2663 & 2664/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Income Tax, New No. 35 To 41, Old No. 28, Central Circle 2(1), Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai. Chennai 600 007. [Pan:Adypa1209N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 21.08.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69

Assessing Officer to treat ₹.1,01,04,800/-, ₹.37,74,839/- and ₹.99,43,032/- as business income as against the additions as unexplained investment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the AYs 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2022-23 respectively ... Officer show-caused the assessee vide notice dated 24.08.2023 as to why a sum of ₹.1,01,04,800/- should not be treated as unexplained investment for AY 2019-20 by application of peak credit theory which was used to bring to tax unexplained investment

Mr. Ramchandra Gopalkrishnan, Mumbai vs. Asst.CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the

ITA 548/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhshri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) बनाम Mr. Gopalkrishnan Ramchandran Acit, Central Circle – 2(3) 901/902, Rustom Villa, Parsi Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs Colony, Dadar(E), Mumbai - 400014 Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aaepg3691H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi / Ms. Aadnya Bhandari, Ar राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.03.2025 उद्घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of 08.04.2025 Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

made thus, the assessing officer made the addition of ‘on money’ paid to builder and 3 Mr. Ramchandran Gopalkrishnan treated the same as unexplained investment, while passing assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 24.10.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the addition in assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ... cheques were handed over for payment of statutory payment like stamp duty, registration fees against the agreement value. Such payment cannot be treated as unexplained investment. The assessing officer erred in making addition without giving reasonable opportunity of cross examination of builder. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission

Nilkanth Raojibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1995/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1995/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Nilkanth Raojibhai Patel Income Tax Officer Karmyog 1 Solarhome, Ward (2), International Vs. Opp. Ashweriya Flats, Taxation, Ahmedabad Vegetable Market Road, Ellora Park, Odhavpura, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bappp3651Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. Dr 02/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 04/04/2025 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad-13, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Was A Delay Of 39 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reason For The Delay Which, According To Him, Was Of 466 Days. It Has Been Submitted That The Assessee Is A Super Senior Citizen Aged 80 Years, Residing In Usa & That He Only Occasionally Visited His Native Place In India. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Sent To His Email Account But He Was Not Regular In Accessing His Email

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 68

facts in confirming addition made by AO of Rs. 1,44,71,816/- of investment made in Mutual Funds from NRI external a/c as unexplained investment u/s 68 of the Act. ITA No. 1995/Ahd/2024 [Nilkanth Raojibhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 – 3. It is respectfully submitted that ... Mutual Fund was made out of bank account of the assessee and, therefore, the AO was not correct in treating the same as unexplained investment. The assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidence in support of the investment made in Mutual Funds. The Ld. AR, therefore