← 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

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.10,00,000 on the count of arbitrary estimation of unexplained investment in bogus purchases; addition made merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any material/ evidence on record; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted ... that the assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- from six tainted parties; and (ii) that the assessee had made unexplained investment of Rs.10 lacs for 6 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 carrying

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 124/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.10,00,000 on the count of arbitrary estimation of unexplained investment in bogus purchases; addition made merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any material/ evidence on record; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted ... that the assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- from six tainted parties; and (ii) that the assessee had made unexplained investment of Rs.10 lacs for 6 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 carrying

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 123/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.10,00,000 on the count of arbitrary estimation of unexplained investment in bogus purchases; addition made merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any material/ evidence on record; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted ... that the assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- from six tainted parties; and (ii) that the assessee had made unexplained investment of Rs.10 lacs for 6 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 carrying

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.10,00,000 on the count of arbitrary estimation of unexplained investment in bogus purchases; addition made merely on presumption & surmises without bringing any material/ evidence on record; addition is unjustified and is liable to be deleted ... that the assessee had made bogus purchases of Rs.14,41,32,250/- from six tainted parties; and (ii) that the assessee had made unexplained investment of Rs.10 lacs for 6 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani Vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 122 to 124/RPR/2024 ITA Nos. 135, 136 & 138/RPR/2024 carrying

Jignesh Shah, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1837/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1837/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Jignesh Shah, D-604, Indraprastha Apartment Near Maheshwari Bhawan City Light Road, Surat - 395 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Agyps 8575 Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Assessee By : Revenue By : Shrti Mehul Shah, Ar Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: The Asst.Cit बनाम Circle-1 / V/S. Bhavnagar (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) : 30/01/2025 : 06/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 23/08/2024, Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Sections 69A & 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year 2022-23.

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shrti Mehul Shah, AR
Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

action of assessing officer in making addition of cash deposits in bank account amounting to Rs.64,25,000/- by treating the same as unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned