← 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

Anjappan Kandasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 460/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.459/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.460/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Kandasamy Dcit बनाम/ #89/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqpk-2230-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.11.63 Lacs on account of cash found during search and another addition of Rs.11.53 Lacs on account of unexplained investments u/s 69A for excess jewellery weighing approx. 380 grams. 5.2 During search on assessee, cash of Rs.13.63 Lacs was found. In response to notice

Anjappan Kandasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.459/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.460/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Kandasamy Dcit बनाम/ #89/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqpk-2230-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.11.63 Lacs on account of cash found during search and another addition of Rs.11.53 Lacs on account of unexplained investments u/s 69A for excess jewellery weighing approx. 380 grams. 5.2 During search on assessee, cash of Rs.13.63 Lacs was found. In response to notice

Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Bhardwaj Harshvadan Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1(2)(3), Vs. 201, A Block, Jasper Now Ward – 1(2)(1), Homes, Nr. Sears Towers, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat, 390015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arhpp4034D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 01/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Is A Delay Of 91 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Received By Him On 18.11.2023 And

For Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs. 70,04,456/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making