← 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 Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Folium Trading Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1271/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1271/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Folium Trading Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs. Old No.42, 43, 44, Corporate Circle 1(1), New Door No.73, Chennai. Shop No.G8, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aaccf 4425B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060106027 (1) Dated 25.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.12.2019. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noticed That This Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 28 Days & Revenue Has Filed Affidavit. The Facts Are That The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 25.01.2024 Was Received In The Office Of Pcit On 02.02.2024 & The Due Date Of Filing Of Appeal Before

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Revenue to make addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned ... investment, needs to be examined. In case the assessee explains the nature and source of investment, then the question of making addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created

Srinivasa Rao Bammidi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.330/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivasa Rao Bammidi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 53-27-3/2, Krm Colony, Ward-2(1), Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam-530013, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-530013. Pan:Akwpb1983F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Sanjeevarao, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 24/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Sanjeevarao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

case letter was issued to the assessee as to why the amount of Rs. 4,13,857/- should not be brought to tax as unexplained investment. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee furnished the details of sources for investment in shares trading of futures, equities and speculations ... consider the submissions made by the assessee and denied an amount of Rs. 2 laksh which was invested in the shares as unexplained investment. The assessee has not contested this issue and paid the taxes. But, again the Ld. AO has levied the penalty on the addition made

Muthusamy Ayyakannu, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Crop Ward 7(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2162/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2162/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Muthusamy Ayyakannu, Income Tax Officer, No.13/23, Padikuppam Road V. Non Corp Ward -7(1), Periyarnagar, Chennai. Anna Nagar, West Anna Nagar S.O, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Cfdpa-0864-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

statement recorded. Therefore, the AO had left with no alternative passed the assessment order by making an addition of Rs.36,88,220/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act by passing an order u/s.143(3) dated 17/12/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal ... available on record and orders of the authorities below. We note that the assessment order passed by the AO by making an addition of unexplained investment Rs.36,88,220/- on 17.12.2019 on account of investment made in the immovable property, as the assessee failed to file the evidences in support

Marappa Gounder Ramasam, Namakkal vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1770/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marappa Gounder Ramasam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Annai Poultry Farm, Ariyur Village, Ward 2, Ariyur Post, Namakkal 637 015. Namakkal. [Pan: Agmpr0841A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Of ₹.2,98,500/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposit.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

addition of ₹.4,00,000/-. 4 I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/24 7. We note that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.15,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee has shown ₹.15,00,000/- as addition in the capital account. Since no documentary evidence filed showing ... source of the said capital account, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investment. The ld. CIT(A) discussed the issued in para 7.2.2 of the impugned order. According to the ld. CIT(A), the assessee obtained loan to the tune of ₹.11.00 lakhs from the Syndicate Bank

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 584/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

claims that the receipts were credited in the bank accounts without any data or particulars has treated the same under section 69C as unexplained investment is without any proper basis and against the principles of taxation and accounting. :-10-: ITA. No:583 & 584/Chny/2022 The assessee has not credited the Agricultural

D.Ramgopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 50C

claims that the receipts were credited in the bank accounts without any data or particulars has treated the same under section 69C as unexplained investment is without any proper basis and against the principles of taxation and accounting. :-10-: ITA. No:583 & 584/Chny/2022 The assessee has not credited the Agricultural