“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

Abhishek Narendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8289/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)

towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account and further made an addition of ₹26,25,929/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of flat. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A amounting to ₹1,63,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee

Darshana Jatin Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7769/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 69Section 69A

Addition under section 69A on account of unexplained cash deposits — Rs. 1,12,33,500/-. ii. Addition under section 69 on account of alleged unexplained investment in property — Rs. 33,00,000/-. iii. Addition on account of interest income — Rs. 4,17,276/-. Thus, total income was assessed

Vijay Pratap Singh Chauhan, Chanderi Distt Ashok Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashok Nagar

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

ITA 127/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs. Ito, Nanakpur Chanderi Ashoknagar Ashok Nagar, Madhya Pradesh Pan : Fpnps4033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Sogani, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 148Section 2Section 50(2)(x)Section 50CSection 56(2)(X)Section 69

r.w.s 115BBE of the Act by treating the difference in the value declared in the registered documents and consideration paid by the assessee as unexplained investment. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. NFAC, Delhi. After considering the submissions of the assessee

Vallabhbhai Dudabhai Chhatrala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3) (1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 815/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblevallabhbhai Dudabhai Chhatrala, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 6, Prabhu Darshan Soc. Nr. Ward-3(3)(5), Dhameliya Nagar, Current Jurisdiction, Varacha Road, Ward-3(3)(1), Rajhans Point, Surat-395006. Surat-395006. [Pan : Aeepc8550 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

action of Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 78,48,900/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of fund utilised for unexplained investment in property. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) may please ... submit the details of source of differential funds utilized for investment in property. Therefore differential amount of Rs.78,48,900/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 for AY 2011-12. Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Kavita Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 250Section 274Section 69

Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred and indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting the making addition on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act totalling amounting to Rs. 48,72,642/- being alleged unexplained investment in property paid to M/s Amar Developers ... indirectly confirming the action of the A.O. in initiated penalties proceeding u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income

Ratibhai Girdharbhai Kakani, Surat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 250Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 1,16,21,427/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) as unexplained investment in property. (il) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) when the transaction value was above the stamp ... establish that any amount over and above the stated consideration was paid to the trustees or officers of the society, the allegation of unexplained investment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the addition is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced

Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 688/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.688/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम/ Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala The Ito V/S. Legal Heir - Ward-3(1)(2) Kalavatiben Jayantilal Surat – 395 007 Lakadawala 7/4200, Galemandi Suthar Faliya Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acvpl 6127 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Re-Opening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act & Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The Act, 1961. Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition Rs.89,900/-on account of cheque issued out of explained source treated as unexplained investment made in shares. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner ... total income of the assessee through the same being the renewed of FDs of earlier year and from explained source treated as alleged unexplained investment made in time deposit. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned

Vimalkumar Bansilal Thakkar, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3) Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2622/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2621 & 2622/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh H. Sodha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148

made to M/s Angel Brokers Ltd and Payments of Rs. 4,69,176 made to M/s Vadodara Exchange Ltd were considered as unexplained investments and accordingly added to income. As the assessee is NRI and was completely unaware of show cause notices, he could not respond to notices. Ex-parte ... made to M/s Angel Brokers Ltd and Payments of Rs. 2,09,109 made to M/s Vadodara Exchange Ltd were considered as unexplained investments and accordingly added to income. As the assessee is NRI and was completely unaware of show cause notices, he could not respond to notices. Ex-parte

Vimalkumar Bansilal Thakkar, Vadodara vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3) Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2621/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2621 & 2622/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh H. Sodha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Rs.4,89,85,09,303/- comprising of following items in the assessment order: (i) Unexplained cash deposits 1,86,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained Investments 2,72,59,22,944/- (iii) Unexplained expenditure 45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources 30,01,31,143/- ------------------ Total ... incomes assessed by him u/s. 69 to 69C of the Act as concealed income: (i) Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.186,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal, Ghodasar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1880/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1880/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Roopsingh Bhupal Singh बनाम/ Ward-3(2)(1) Goyal V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 49, Vishala Park Nr. Hariom Nagar Ghodasar Ahmedabad – 380 050 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afxpg 1573 Q (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/112025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/08/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue, In This Appeal, Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Of Rs.2,48,62,500/- Ito Vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) of Rs.2,48,62,500/- ITO vs. Roopsingh Bhupal Singh Goyal Asst.Year : 2012-13 on account of unexplained investment in property u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The brief facts of the case as extracted from ... completed the assessment proceedings making addition of Rs. 2,48,62,500/- being 50% share of the assessee in the difference value as unexplained investment. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal with the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee furnished additional evidences and explained that though

Megha Kishor Dalvi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Pune

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

ITA 955/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Megha Kishor Dalvi, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune 27 Amruta Apartment, Sinhagad Road, Anandnagar Manik Baug, Pune-411051 Pan : Ajopd8763C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs. 70 lakh being (1/2 of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-) her share of unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property under section 69 of the IT act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal

Joita Ram Nanji Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4(2), Mumbai, Income Tax

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

ITA 8357/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

appeals, the grounds of appeal and the facts are similar except variation of addition on account of unexplained investment. Therefore, the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by a common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.8355/Mum/2025 is taken as the "lead" case ... respectively. Thereafter, assessment order u/s 153(C) was passed on 19.03.2024 by making addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 5.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AR before the CIT(A). The appellant challenged the assessment order on various legal grounds, violation

Joita Ram Nanji Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8356/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Joita Ram Nanji Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8355/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Johnson Praveen Quadros, Australia vs. Income Tax Officer, Intl Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5778/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Johnson Praveen Quadros Income Tax Officer, Intl Tax Australia Ward 3 (3)(1) C/0 Room No.626, 6Th Floor, E 602, Nazrene Appts Marve Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Vs. Road, Kharodi Malad West Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400095 Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra (Pan: Aacpq0820G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 28.08.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order Dated 28.07.2025 Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1078981626(1) Dated 28.07.2025 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

only issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of addition of Rs.14,70,000/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a non-resident Indian (NRI) in the year under consideration. Return of income was not filed ... brought on record. Assessee has adequately explained the source of payments made for the purchase of immovable property, part of which was added as unexplained investment. Accordingly, the addition so made of Rs. 14.70 lakhs u/s 69 by the ld. AO is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee in this