← 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

Anil Dhansukhlal, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxation) Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2024[A Y 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.2,97,63,459/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 by following order of DRP. Anil Dhansukhlal 2 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend ... issued the draft assessment order dated 24.03.2023 u/s 144C of the Act by making an addition of Rs.2,97,63,459/-, on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the Act and proposing assessment of total income at Rs.2,97,63,940/-. 3. Aggrieved

Geethika Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1240/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1239 & 1240/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Geethika Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(4) Pan:Aamfg5506F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A Harish राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A HarishFor Respondent: : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, DR
Section 143(3)Section 221(1)Section 271(1)(c)

made addition of Rs.38,10,000/- based on the mistake of date on the purchase voucher by treating this purchase of oil as unexplained investment being undisclosed income. However, the assessee has duly recorded all the transactions of purchase and sale in the books of account. He has referred ... sale of Rs.38,09,524/- was made by the assessee by making the purchases on or before 27/11/2016 out of books and amounts to unexplained investment. Challenging the said assessment order, the assessee filed the belated appeals before the learned CIT (A) after the delay of 638 days. The assessee

Pradyumna Agros Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1033/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Pradyumna Agro Private Vs. Acit Limited Central Circle-2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aajcp4282H] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad & Shri K.S.Rajendra Kumar, Ar Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.09.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Is Erroneous & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & Law.

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad &
Section 132Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 69

money payment for purchase of property from MNR Dairy Farm to the extent of Rs.4,65,40,000/- shall not be treated as unexplained investment. In response, the appellant submitted that the material found during the course of search in the residential premises of Shri D.Venugopal Reddy does not prove ... purchase of property over and above the sale consideration in the sale deed and therefore, the question of making additions towards on-money as unexplained investment on the basis of statement recorded from Shri D.Venugopal Reddy and Shri MSN Reddy does not arise. The appellant had also submitted that