← 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

M/S Benara Bearing Pvt.Ltd, Agra vs. DCIT-CC-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 333/LKW/2024[B.P.1996-97 to 2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, AdvcoateFor Respondent: Sh. Gayasuddin, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 158BSection 245CSection 250Section 263

addition on account of undisclosed transaction of Rs. 4,08,21,897/-. 10. That the Id.AO has erred in making addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs.53,44,000/-. 11. That the Id.AO has erred in making addition on account of unexplained cash of Rs.7,00,000/-. 12. That ... Mahesh Chandra Agarwal & Shri K. Anil Kumar Agarwal respectively. (iii) Undisclosed loose papers as per Annexure-C of Rs. 4,08,21,897/- (iv) Unexplained investment in land as per Annexure D-1 & D-2 as discussed above of Rs. 53,44,000/-. (v) Unexplained cash not explained

Aadi Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aadi Real Estate Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 1(1)(1), 402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aajca 1796 R अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 25.05.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Relating To The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Had Filed ‘Nil’ Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year, I.E. Ay 2012-13. Subsequently, On Information Received From Ddit (Inv.), Unit-1 (3), Ahmedabad, By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entry Taken Through Dummy Companies Run & Controlled By One Jignesh Shah, Which Information Was Revealed Consequent To Search Action Conducted On Jignesh Shah, The Case Of The Aadi Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

Additions of Rs. 4,73,20,000 for unexplained transactions 3. Additions of Rs. 7,38,65,000 for unexplained Investments 4. Additions against natural justice and Arbitrary and highly excessive 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 272(c) is erroneously done.” 8. At the outset itself, it was noted that

Shri Brijesh Sukhdev Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1001/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.197&198/Ahd/2013 (A.Ys.: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Uma Shakti Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Residency Project, Income Tax, A-128, Heritage Bunglows, Central Circle-1(1), Opp. Science City Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380060 [Pan No.Aacfu2135J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. No.196/Ahd/2013 (A.Y.: 2008-09) Vikas R. Patel, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 23, Uma Bungalows, Income Tax, R.C. Technical Road, Central Circle-1(1), B/H. Nirman Tawar, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380061 [Pan No.Accpp4640D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. No.201/Ahd/2013 (A.Y.: 2008-09) Deepak G. Prajapati, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 2, Kunta Park Society, Income Tax, Nava Vadaj, Opp. Ganesh School Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad-380013 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Abcpp4846L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

recalled for the limited purposes of adjudicating quantum of addition to be made in the hands of the partners on account of unexplained investment. The specific findings of the ITAT in M.A. No. 10/Ahd/2022 is at Para 15 to 21 is reproduced as under: “15. Taking up next the Miscellaneous ... stated that the issue may be decided considering the provisions of the Act in this regard that the addition on account of unexplained investment is to be made in the year in which it is so made. 17. In view of the same, to the extent of subjecting Rs.41 lakhs

Sushmasri Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 58/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.57 & 58/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Smt. Sushmasri Boppana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Akvpb6106D Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Rs.9 crores, being the difference between the consideration shown as per receipt dated 10/07/2014 and consideration paid as per registered sale deed as unexplained investment. 7. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee ... reiterated her argument taken before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment amounting to Rs.9 crores is not based on any evidence like agreement of sale or proof of payment of consideration in cash over and above the consideration paid

Sushmasri Boppana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 57/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.57 & 58/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Smt. Sushmasri Boppana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Akvpb6106D Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

Rs.9 crores, being the difference between the consideration shown as per receipt dated 10/07/2014 and consideration paid as per registered sale deed as unexplained investment. 7. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee ... reiterated her argument taken before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment amounting to Rs.9 crores is not based on any evidence like agreement of sale or proof of payment of consideration in cash over and above the consideration paid