← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Icnome Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

ITA 1102/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle-2(2) Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 2 आदेश / Order Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 To 2017-18 Arises Out Of A Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 04-08-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.153A Of The Act Dated 29-09-2021. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication

For Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment u/s.69 towards the difference between the value as per registered sale deed and the purchase consideration as mentioned in the loose sheet extracted from ... sale deeds and accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to add the differential of the two values to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. 2.5 During the course of search, another statement was also recorded from the assessee at the time of PO lifting on 12-03-2020 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1101/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment u/s.69 towards the difference between the value as per registered sale deed and the purchase consideration as mentioned in the loose sheet extracted from ... sale deeds and accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to add the differential of the two values to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. 2.5 During the course of search, another statement was also recorded from the assessee at the time of PO lifting on 12-03-2020 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1100/CHNY/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment u/s.69 towards the difference between the value as per registered sale deed and the purchase consideration as mentioned in the loose sheet extracted from ... sale deeds and accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to add the differential of the two values to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. 2.5 During the course of search, another statement was also recorded from the assessee at the time of PO lifting on 12-03-2020 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Chennai

ITA 1099/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon'Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Central Circle-2(2) Chennai. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 2 आदेश / Order Per Bench: 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 To 2017-18 Arises Out Of A Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 04-08-2023 In The Matter Of Separate Assessments Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.153A Of The Act Dated 29-09-2021. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Stated To Be Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) a/w Shri
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,60,00,000/- made by the assessing officer as unexplained investment u/s.69 towards the difference between the value as per registered sale deed and the purchase consideration as mentioned in the loose sheet extracted from ... sale deeds and accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to add the differential of the two values to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. 2.5 During the course of search, another statement was also recorded from the assessee at the time of PO lifting on 12-03-2020 wherein

DCIT Pondicherry Circle, Pondicherry vs. Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd., Pondicherry

Accordingly. The ground stand partly allowed

ITA 1395/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.974/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited Dcit बनाम/ #17, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry Circle, Vs. Pondicherry-605 011. Puducherry-605 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcr-4195-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1395/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited बनाम Pondicherry Circle, # C-9 & C-10, Industrial Estate, / Vs. Puducherry-605 001. Thattanchavady, Pondicherry-605 009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabcr-4195-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 69

Your Appellant and its associated concern Liquor India Ltd. as on 31.03.2012 and the difference amounting to Rs.5,08,31,829/- was disallowed as unexplained investments u/s 69. This difference is due to accounting journal entries passed by Your Appellant in its Books of accounts which have not been correspondingly ... Rs.2542.19 Lacs Rs.1650.01 Lacs Balance as per other party Rs.1291.02 Lacs Rs.1141.70 Lacs Difference Rs.1251.16 Lacs Rs.508.31 Lacs The aforesaid difference were treated as unexplained investments u/s 69 and added to the income of the assessee. 3.2 During first appeal, the assessee submitted balance confirmation certificate