← 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

S Prathick Kumar, Chengalpattu vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 972/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 972/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income S. Prathick Kumar, V. Tax, No. 56, High Road, Central Circle 3(3), Chengalpattu, Chennai. Kancheepuram – 603 002. [Pan: Ajopp-5977-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

this appeal is, the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making :-2-: ITA. No:972/Chny/2022 addition of unexplained investment in stock, found during the course of survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... survey is taken to be correct, still the treatment of the excess stock :-5-: ITA. No:972/Chny/2022 and cash found cannot be taxed as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act to levy tax u/s.115BBE of the Act. Before us, the ld.counsel assailed the action of Lower authorities has relied

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 782/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

deciding the appeal on merit relating to addition of Rs. 1,17,38,065/- made on account of alleged unexplained investment in FDR with Bank of Baroda. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the appeal on merit relating to addition ... Rs.70 lacs made on account of alleged unexplained investment in property at Mumbai. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 1.1 The assessee in ITA No.782/JPR/2024 has raised the following grounds of appeal

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 781/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

deciding the appeal on merit relating to addition of Rs. 1,17,38,065/- made on account of alleged unexplained investment in FDR with Bank of Baroda. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the appeal on merit relating to addition ... Rs.70 lacs made on account of alleged unexplained investment in property at Mumbai. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 1.1 The assessee in ITA No.782/JPR/2024 has raised the following grounds of appeal