← 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

Bajrang Lal Muhal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2408/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyabajrang Lal Muhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(5), 973/B, Shalimar Garden Extn. 1, Ghaziabad. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad – 201 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aompm4148M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 10.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.10,19,548/- As Unexplained Investment Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Materials Available On Record. 3. Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Material Available On Record.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Delay Is Attributable Due To The Health Problem Of The Legal

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

passed by ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law. 2. The assessing officer (AO) has erred in making addition of Rs.10,19,548/- as unexplained investment without considering the fact, circumstances and materials available on record. 3. Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in confirming the assessment order passed ... income in response to notice under section 148, the credit card payments as per detailed below totaling to Rs.10,19,548/- are held unexplained investment by the assessee and added to the income of the assessee under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. S.No. Payment made. Name

Nachimuthugownder Balasamy Karthikeyan, Erode vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.428/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nachimuthugownder Balasamy Ito बनाम/ Karthikeyan International Taxation Ward, 66, Kovalan 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Vs. Teachers Colony, Erode-638 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aotpk-3606-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Bengaluru-3 (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 15.12.2023. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of certain addition of cash deposits and unexplained investments. The assessee being non- resident individual transacted in Bitcoins. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. The impugned order is bad and erroneous ... Rs.41.67 Lacs in draft assessment order dated 29.03.2023. In this order, Ld. AO proposed addition of cash deposit for Rs.16.63 Lacs, made addition of unexplained investment u/s 69 for Rs.2.42 Lacs & Rs.18.55 Lacs respectively and also determined business income of Rs.1.66 Lacs. 3.2 In the return, the assessee reflected sale