← 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

Sricharan Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1573/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Afnpd6112N Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Alipd6384R Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Bgjpd6383B Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement

Section 1Section 132

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'B' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

Sri Venkat Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1563/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Afnpd6112N (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Alipd6384R (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Hyderabad. Pan: Bgjpd6383B (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad. (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132

calling for certain Information. AD after verification of the information submitted, concluded the assessment by making addition of Rs 20,93.000 an account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80D. Aggrieved by the additions made

Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1559/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Afnpd6112N Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Alipd6384R Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Bgjpd6383B Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Department Represented By

Section 132Section 132(4)

calling for certain Information. AD after verification of the information submitted, concluded the assessment by making addition of Rs 20,93.000 an account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 800. Aggrieved by the additions made

Suhas Digambar Chinchkar, Pune vs. CIT(A) & NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1651/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1651/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Suhas Digambar Chinchkar, Vs. Ito, National Faceless B- 1005, Bhoomi Allium, Assessment Centre, Near Kokne Chowk, Delhi. Rahatni, Pune- 411017. Pan : Afspc4270R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ritvik Vatsyayan Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹5,00,000 Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Providing The Appellant An Opportunity To Rebut Or Cross-Examine The Third- Party Material Used Against Him. The Addition Is Based On A Document Allegedly Impounded During A Survey On M/S Swastik

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik VatsyayanFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 44ASection 69

against the income of Rs.3,81,130/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering

Shrachi Realty Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1948/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2023-24 Shrachi Realty Pvt. Ltd…....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 686 Anandapur, East Kolkata Township, Kol – 700107. [Pan: Aalcs1558D] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata….……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 04, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2023–24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On. The Assessment Was Completed At An Assessed Income Of Rs. 43,30,08,645/- By Making Addition On Account Of Unexplained Credits U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 4,02,97,600/-, Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 2,43,55,000/- & Disallowance Of Expenses Shrachi Realty Pvt. Ltd Amounting To Rs. 28,62,845/-. Accordingly, A Sum Of Rs. 6,75,15,445 /- Was Added Back To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

making addition on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,02,97,600/-, unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,43,55,000/- and disallowance of expenses Shrachi Realty Pvt. Ltd amounting to Rs. 28,62,845/-. Accordingly