← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1312/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2., Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1305/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2, Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1304/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2., Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1303/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

V.V. Ttitanium Pigments Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, CC-2, Madurai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1023/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

only relate to the projected figures in relation to TWAD project and further ought to have appreciated that the assessment of projected figures as unexplained investment on various facets was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 16. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed ... evident, the issues that fall for our consideration are – (i) disallowance of wages payable for Rs.424.49 Lacs; (ii) Addition of unexplained investment u/s 69 for Rs.85 Lacs; (iii) Addition u/s 69C for Rs.2033 Lacs. 1.3 The Ld. AR advanced arguments and referred to various documents as placed on record

V Sathyamoorthy&Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1022/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1022/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

should be reckoned as bad in law. 19. The CIT (Appeals)- 20, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.11,90,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the Appellant firm based on certain loose sheet(s) found at the time of search ... only relate to the projected figures in relation to TWAD project and further ought to have appreciated that the assessment of projected figures as unexplained investment on various facets was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 23. The CIT (Appeals) -20, Chennai failed

Santosh Maruti Pawar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1311/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1311/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Maruti Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. At Post Gopal Wadi, Daund, Pune- 413801. Pan : Bhrpp4140F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shir Paras Munot Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly. The Ld. Ar With The Help Of Delay Condonation Application Supported With An Affidavit Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Submitting The Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Suffering From Hepatomegaly & Undergoing

For Appellant: Shir Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 3

following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in making addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained investment to the Returned Income without considering the factual position of the same. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying ... assessee, the Assessing Officer has no option but to add the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investments. In the first appellate proceedings, the 5 assessee again remained absent and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and also without discussing