← 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, Chennai vs. Amit Kumar Kothari, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1218/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1218/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit Shri Amit Kumar Kothari बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), New No.35 To 41 Old No.28 Chennai. Evk Sampath Salai, Vepery, Vs. Chennai-600 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adypa-1209-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkat Raman (Ca)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkat Raman (CA)- Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 69

quantified from the seized note books. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the peak credit method was adopted to quantify the unexplained investment only. The interest income and misc. income arising out of the reported loan transactions are required to be brought to tax as income ... offered additional business income of Rs.200 Lacs, the same was reduced from total income and the amount of Rs.200.90 Lacs was separately added as unexplained investment u/s 69 which would be subjected to tax u/s 115BBE. 3.3 The Ld. AO also assessed interest and commission separately and quantified the same

Income Tax Officer, Greams Road Income Tax Office vs. K Ansari, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

quantum of investment made by the assessee in two different forms, which totals to 23.31 crores and leaving a balance of Rs.11.45 crores as unexplained investment after reducing the amounts gifted by the assessee to his brothers. As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department Greams Road vs. K Ansari, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1357/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1357/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1358/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Mr. K. Ansari बनाम/ #6/1, Parameshwari Nagar International Taxation Ward -1(1) Vs. 4Th Street, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akhpa-5381-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Fca)-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA)-Ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

quantum of investment made by the assessee in two different forms, which totals to 23.31 crores and leaving a balance of Rs.11.45 crores as unexplained investment after reducing the amounts gifted by the assessee to his brothers. As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

received back as unaccounted income. The chit payment for this year amounted to Rs.3.52 Lacs. The Ld. AO proceeded to add the same as unexplained investment u/s 69. 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee retracted the sworn statement and stated that no such contracts were entered ... cash but failed to show the same in their return of income in respective assessment years. Therefore, the said amount was added as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.4 Similar additions were made for AY 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20 for Rs.181.50 Lacs, Rs.91.50 Lacs and Rs.63.47

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

received back as unaccounted income. The chit payment for this year amounted to Rs.3.52 Lacs. The Ld. AO proceeded to add the same as unexplained investment u/s 69. 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee retracted the sworn statement and stated that no such contracts were entered ... cash but failed to show the same in their return of income in respective assessment years. Therefore, the said amount was added as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.4 Similar additions were made for AY 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20 for Rs.181.50 Lacs, Rs.91.50 Lacs and Rs.63.47

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 466/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

received back as unaccounted income. The chit payment for this year amounted to Rs.3.52 Lacs. The Ld. AO proceeded to add the same as unexplained investment u/s 69. 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee retracted the sworn statement and stated that no such contracts were entered ... cash but failed to show the same in their return of income in respective assessment years. Therefore, the said amount was added as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.4 Similar additions were made for AY 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20 for Rs.181.50 Lacs, Rs.91.50 Lacs and Rs.63.47

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 465/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.465/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.466/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant Dcit बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers Central Circle-1(3) Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkat RamanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 69

received back as unaccounted income. The chit payment for this year amounted to Rs.3.52 Lacs. The Ld. AO proceeded to add the same as unexplained investment u/s 69. 3.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee retracted the sworn statement and stated that no such contracts were entered ... cash but failed to show the same in their return of income in respective assessment years. Therefore, the said amount was added as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.4 Similar additions were made for AY 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2019-20 for Rs.181.50 Lacs, Rs.91.50 Lacs and Rs.63.47