← 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

Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Pune vs. ITO, Ward13(1), Pune

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

ITA 224/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income of Rs.2,16,34,760/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained investments in purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,83,64,830/- u/s 69 and salary income of Rs.16,44,930/- and also an amount

Geeva Pasupathy Gounder, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward1, Panvel

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

ITA 2882/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2882/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Geeva Pasupathy Gounder, V The Income Tax Officer, 703, Neha Apartment, Plot S Ward-1, Panvel. No.7, Sector-20C, Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400708. Pan: Aropg2233L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramchandran (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Basavaraj Hiremath-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 24/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2013-14 Dated 15.05.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Issuing The Notice Under Section 148 Based On The Information Pertaining To The Appellant Which Was Found From The Books Of Accounts/Documents Seized During The Course Of Search Of The Other Person Which Was Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 153C

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained investment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 amounting to Rs. 6,00,000 pertaining to alleged cash payment made by the appellant ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) / National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained investment made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 amounting to Rs.15,81,000 pertaining to the sources of payments made during the year under consideration

Lokmanya Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Sanli, Sangli vs. ITO Ward5 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 2261/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2261/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Lokmanya Gramin Bigar Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, At Post 1, Kameri, Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aabal0364J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Chandra Vijay Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Period Under Consideration. On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.7,47,10,709/-

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

total income of Rs.10,05,48,940/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained money u/s 69A of Rs.6,24,88,224/- and unexplained investments u/s 69 of Rs.3,69,21,340/- and undisclosed interest income as income from other sources of Rs.11,39,379/-. Since the assessee remained absent