← 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

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 354/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69

charges and late payment. The AO also made a substantial addition of Rs. 22,19,000/- under Section 69, treating the opening balance as unexplained investment due to a lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld all these additions, holding that the assessee had not provided sufficient proof ... opening cash as per his Books of Accounts. 3. (a) The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.22,19,000/-as alleged unexplained Investment without referring to any relevant provision of Act. (b) The CIT(A) has erred in invoking sec.69 and confirming the said Addition which does

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, Vadodara vs. Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 353/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.353/Ahd/2022 & 354/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh The Dy.Commissioner Of बनाम/ Chudasama Income Tax V/S. C/O.Anil R. Shah (Ca), Circle -1 (2) Shreeji House, 4Th Floor Vadodara – 390 007 B/H. M.J. Library Ahmedabad - 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acrpc 1888 M (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69

charges and late payment. The AO also made a substantial addition of Rs. 22,19,000/- under Section 69, treating the opening balance as unexplained investment due to a lack of documentary evidence. The CIT(A) upheld all these additions, holding that the assessee had not provided sufficient proof ... opening cash as per his Books of Accounts. 3. (a) The Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.22,19,000/-as alleged unexplained Investment without referring to any relevant provision of Act. (b) The CIT(A) has erred in invoking sec.69 and confirming the said Addition which does

ITO, Ward-3(1), Gaya vs. Shri Gauri Textiles Industries, Gaya

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………….………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] C.O. No.5/Pat/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya………….................................……........……....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Survey Was Conducted On 07.02.2017 In The Case Of The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading Business Of Cotton Yarn & Hosiery Yarn. During The Survey, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Made Substantial Deposits In Various Bank Accounts Linked With The Firm. However, The Assessee Disclosed

Section 143(2)

Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya “I have carefully considered the discussion made by the A.O. regarding the addition of Rs.95,98,868/- on account of unexplained investment in stock. The appellant is a partnership firm having its business located at Manpur, Gaya. The same premises are shared by another partnership firm

Pkp Hotels Private Limited, Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 1197/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1197/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pkp Hotels Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.69, Adhiyaman Bye Pass Road, Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu-636 701. Hosur. [Pan: Aagcp0732P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056586224(1) Dated 27.09.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013- 14. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged Order U/S. 250 Dated 27.09.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessee raised a ground that the Assessing Officer went wrong in making addition of Purchases of Immovable Property of Rs.76,42,040/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act Page - 1 - of 5 by passing an ex-parte order u/s 144 and the same was confirmed