“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

Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2150/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

cash by the assessee for acquiring the jewellery. 7.3 The Revenue is in appeal before us against the deletion of addition made of unexplained investment in jewellery of 496 gms found at the Assessee-Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar-Cross Appeals AY : 2005-06 residence of the assessee which was attributed ... reads as under:- “The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.84.50 lacs made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land from Shri Vikas Shah and Others without considering the entries recorded on seized document as well as the statement

Kunturu Chinna Narayana Nagaraju, Pulivendla vs. Income Tax Officer, Bagalkot

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

ITA 763/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya Samudrala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 44ASection 69A

deposited new currency notes of Rs.500 & 2,000 during the demonetisation period. The AO treated the entre cash deposits during the demonetisation period as unexplained investment u/s. 69A and section 115BBE was applied and passed assessment order on 11.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

ITA 824/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 68

Whether Ld. CIT(A) is erred in law and on facts in holding that conclusive proof is not available with the Department evidencing unexplained investment towards purchase of land amounting to Rs. 5,37,00,000/- whereas it is clearly mentioned in the assessment order referring such documents evidencing cash

Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

ITA 553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 68

Vishwakalyan Multi State Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Aurangabad vs. Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 909/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.909/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Travel, Prop. Shri Prakash Babanji Rathore transferred to M/s. Dyaneshwari Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Limited through RTGS, treating the above cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE. 3. Aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal

Nitin Suwalal Shingavi, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 880/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.880/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nitin Suwalal Shingavi, V The Dcit, 2830, Nandanvan, Gujrathi S Central Circle-1(2), Pune. Lane, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra – 414001. Pan: Aeyps6054A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Nitin Suwalal Shingavi Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Pune Dated 10/04/2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 21/04/2021 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-11, Pune Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Of Taxing The Amount Of Excess Stock Of Rs.25,10,000/- Declared In The Survey U/Sec 133 A Of The Act As Deemed Nitin Suwalal Shingavi [A]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250Section 69B

assessee submitted 3 Nitin Suwalal Shingavi [A] letter dated 20/04/2021 in which assessee submitted that Stock declared is not unexplained investments and it was duly accounted in the books. It was submitted by the assessee in the said letter that the excess gold was on account of metal advance against ... orders from customers, from labourers and relatives. However, the AO treated the income of Rs. 25,10,000/- as unexplained investments u/s69B and taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE. The AO accepted Returned Income. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the assessee filed Appeal before ld.CIT(A) who confirmed

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

parte for non-prosecution, and not on merits. 4.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5.26.06.125 as unexplained investment us 69. 5.The Id. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the application of section 69A Considering as unexplained money. 6.The appellant carves leave

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 53/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Sumer Prakash Khandaka, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 2, Jaipur

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

ITA 586/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 288ASection 69

erred in law as well as in facts while considering investment of Rs. 116733334.00 in immovable property and Rs. 3492868.00 in motor car as unexplained investment u/s 69 and added to the total income of the assessee and imposed tax liability u/s 115BBE of the Act without any reason ... Interest income 3,67,694/- 5. Add: Income from House property 10,71,228/- 6. Add: Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act 12,02,26,202/- 7. Total assessed income 15,23,89,024/- 4 ITA No. 586/JPR/2024 Sh. Sumer Prakash Khandaka vs. ACIT 8. Rounded off u/s 288A

Kalu Jat, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 747/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

Section 148ASection 56(2)(i)Section 69

case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 54,00,000/- to the income of the appellant on this count ... case the Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the 4 ITA No. 747/JPR/2023 Sh. Kalu Jat vs. ITO I.T. Act, 1961 amounting

Mrs. Kalavathi Arumugam, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 129/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri A Ravish Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 68Section 69

infirmity in the documents as well as without doing cross verification from the loan parties has treated the amount of cash deposits as unexplained investment, which is contrary to the provisions law. As such, the assessee has discharged the onus imposed us/ 68 of the Act by furnishing the details

Shri Punit Kevalchand Surana, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 2324/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 69B

order without giving sufficient opportunity and confirmed the reopening of the assessment of case alongwith addition of Rs. 1.40 crores u/s. 69B w.r.t. unexplained investment while purchasing a flat from M/s. Nish Developers (P) Ltd. 2. On the day of hearing before this Tribunal, Learned Authorised Representative

Ajay Baburam Gupta, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 2311/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ajay Baburam Gupta Vs. The Income Tax Officer 2, Sunvihar Chs Ltd Ward 34 (1) (1), Mumbai Plot No 153 Room Number 803, Eighth Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Sector 12 Vashi C – 41 & C – 43, G-Block Navi Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, 400703 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 51. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajipg4853E

For Appellant: Shri Prasham Kumar DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajnish Yadav , SR DR

Section 142Section 143Section 69A

concern and the grievance of the assessee is that the appellate authority has confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,940,600/– on account of unexplained investment under section 69A of the income tax act. 3. Brief facts of the case show that the assessee is an individual who has earned

DCIT(International Taxation), Delhi vs. Kesav Sree Kumar Kesavan Nair, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2849/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun N. Shate, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 69Section 69C

erred in deleting the addition of : (a) Rs. 6,62,376/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and (b) Rs. 2,51,17,505/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without calling for any remand report ... erred in deleting the addition of : (a) Rs. 12,01,388/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and (b) Rs. 2,79,52,252/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 on the basis of additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without calling for any remand report

DCIT, International Taxation Circle-2(1)2, Delhi vs. Kesav Sree Kumar Kesavan Nair, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2848/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mithun N. Shate, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 69Section 69C

Shri Bhagwanbhai Ranchhodbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.3,64,566/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not granting benefit of telescoping while confirming the additions on account of disallowance ... various expenses and unexplained investment. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order

Late Bhagwatsinh Jibhubhai Chavda)L/H.Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Bhaktiben Bhagwatsinh Chavda, (L/H of Late Bhagwatsinh J Chavda), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shri Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Apurupa Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Hari Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed

Section 153C

Page No. 1 of Annexure A/RA/Res/01. Hence, said T. Shyam was asked for explanation why the said amount should not be treated as unexplained investment made by assessee in firm M/s. Apurupa DT Infra LLP during F.Y. 2013-14 relevant to A. Y. 2014-15. However, T. Shyam failed ... Total 8. On the basis of the above, it was submitted that the seized documents represent the unaccounted and unexplained investment for the assessment year 2014-15 and therefore, the Assessing Officer was right in making the addition. It was submitted by the ld.DR that the LD.CIT(A) has contradicted