← 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

Kohli Garments, Khanna vs. ACIT, Circle, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 147/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kohli Garments, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Circle Khanna, Subhash Bazar, Punjab Khanna 141401 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalfk0898F अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69B

having confirmed the assessment order treating the amount of Rs.44,98,000/- on account of excess stock, surrendered during the course of survey, as unexplained investment in stock u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act and assessing to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances ... shown as Sundry Debtors under the head "Current Assets" in Balance Sheet, surrendered during the course of survey, as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act and assessing to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

Sh. Saranjit Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 384/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

operation, several incriminating documents were found and seized from the premises of the assessee, which showed that the assessee had made substantial amount of unexplained investment in purchase as well as on construction/renovation of immovable properties, which has not been shown by the assessee in his accounts/ ITR (Income ... owned by the assessee with other 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 6 persons/family members and thereafter calculating the unexplained investment of the assessee on the basis of share of the assessee in the said properties. Besides that one loose receipt/note dated 27.01.2011 was also

Sh. Saranjit Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 383/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

operation, several incriminating documents were found and seized from the premises of the assessee, which showed that the assessee had made substantial amount of unexplained investment in purchase as well as on construction/renovation of immovable properties, which has not been shown by the assessee in his accounts/ ITR (Income ... owned by the assessee with other 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 6 persons/family members and thereafter calculating the unexplained investment of the assessee on the basis of share of the assessee in the said properties. Besides that one loose receipt/note dated 27.01.2011 was also

Sh. Shamsher Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 382/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

operation, several incriminating documents were found and seized from the premises of the assessee, which showed that the assessee had made substantial amount of unexplained investment in purchase as well as on construction/renovation of immovable properties, which has not been shown by the assessee in his accounts/ ITR (Income ... owned by the assessee with other 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 6 persons/family members and thereafter calculating the unexplained investment of the assessee on the basis of share of the assessee in the said properties. Besides that one loose receipt/note dated 27.01.2011 was also

Sh. Shamsher Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA and Shri Vir Sain Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250

operation, several incriminating documents were found and seized from the premises of the assessee, which showed that the assessee had made substantial amount of unexplained investment in purchase as well as on construction/renovation of immovable properties, which has not been shown by the assessee in his accounts/ ITR (Income ... owned by the assessee with other 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 6 persons/family members and thereafter calculating the unexplained investment of the assessee on the basis of share of the assessee in the said properties. Besides that one loose receipt/note dated 27.01.2011 was also

Gouthamchand Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 4(4), Che, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 733/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.733/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Gouthamchand Jain Income Tax Officer Old No.19A, New No.36, Non-Corporate Ward 4(4), बनाम/ Vs. Seethapathy Street, Chennai. Madhavaram, Chennai – 600 060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagpg-9423-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani (Advocate) - Ld.Ar (Present Virtually) " थ" कीओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Srinivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr (Present Virtually) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-08-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Srinivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

complete details. In the said background, Ld. AO disbelieved the explanation of the assessee and added the deposit so made by the assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication

Nathella Sanjana Anandha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 1(6), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1452/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Nathella Sanjana Anandha Income Tax Officer, 58, North Mada Street, V. Non- Corporate Ward -1(6), Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Agfpt-9718-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Mansoor Ilahi, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Mansoor Ilahi, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

Assessee is the ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by upholding the addition of Rs.5,45,000/- made by the AO as unexplained investment U/s.69 of the Act. :-2-: ITA. No: 1452/Chny/2024 3. The assessee is an individual filed her return of Income ... period. The AO has passed an order U/s.143(3) on 06/11/2019 by making an addition of Rs.5,45,000/- U/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment, holding as under: “The assessee has merely stated that “the gift received during the marriage was in the form of legal tender