← 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

Girish Kumar Konthoujam, Manipur vs. ACIT Circle (Shl-C-(9)(1)), Imphal

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

ITA 231/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Girish Kumar Konthoujam...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ningthoukhong Bazar, Ward No.2 Bishnupur, Sub-Division Bishnupur Dist-795126.. [Pan: Ejcpk0452B] Vs. Acit, Circle (Shl-C-(9)(1)), Imphal .……………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bhupender Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return For Ay 2017-18. As Per A 'Suspicious Transaction Report' (Str) Information Received In Insight Portal Under The Category High Risk Criu/Vru It Revealed By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Made Purchase Of Immovable Property Worth Rs.1,02,50,000/- During The Fy 2016-17 At Bangalore. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By Making Addition U/S 69 Of The Act Of Rs.1,02,50,000/- As Unexplained Investment.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessment 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition u/s 69 of the Act of Rs.1,02,50,000/- as unexplained investment. Girish Kumar Konthoujam 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

Samirbhai Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2479/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 132Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

passed on 15.10.2025 for AY 2018-19 by NFAC, [CIT(A)], Delhi (for short CIT(A)) upholding the addition of Rs.14,58,475/- as unexplained investment u/s 69C in respect of LTC loss on sale of shares of Ishan Infrastructure and Shelters Ltd., (for short ‘IISL’) is wholly illegal, unlawful ... Loss on sale of shares of Ishan Infrastructure and Shelters Ltd. was bogus and thereby making addition of Rs. 14,58,475/- as unexplained investment u/s 69C. The Id. CTT(A) ought not to have appreciated that the computation of LTC Loss of Rs. 14,58,475/- in respect

Alakaben Kirtibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2475/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2475/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Alakaben Kirtibhai Shah The Ito बनाम/ G-206, Vrajbhumi Flat Ward-7(2)(1) V/S. Opp. Geb Dehgam Road Ahmedabad Naroda Ahmedabad – 382 330 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cpaps 2335 R (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr.DR
Section 250

addition made/confirmed by the lower authorities of Rs.99,60,000/- on account of Alakaben Kirtibhai Shah vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 unexplained investment made in shares of SMS Techsoft (India) Limited [for short ‘SMSTL’] by the assessee. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted ... SEBI, itself, proved that the assessee has not made any investment of its own. Therefore, it is not a case of any unexplained investment by the assessee. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on various orders in relation to other such persons, whose accounts were also

Deepa Kamal Kishore Sharma, Kochi, Kerala vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2209/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2208

Deepa Kamal Kishore Sharma, Kochi, Kerala vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2208/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2208

Sarika Jagannath Patil, Raigad vs. Assessing Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 2806/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2806/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ronak H. JainFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 147

admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned addition has been made for the unexplained investment in immovable property by the assessee. He submitted that the immovable property has been purchased in the name of assessee and her husband and total ... assessee and ld. Assessing Officer finally concluded that the 50% share of the assessee in the immovable property amounting to ₹67,49,450 is unexplained investment and made addition thereof and assessed the income at ₹67,49,450. Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) mentioning all the details

Savita Kamlakar Birajdar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Latur

ITA 2190/PUN/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)
Section 144Section 147Section 69

being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. AO erred in treating the entire investment of 31,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69, ignoring the fact that appellant's share was only 50% of the purchase value

Sahit Chowdary Garapati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1680/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Without prejudice, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.1,10,00,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate the reply filed by the appellant during the proceedings u/s 148A of the Act and documentary ... remained unexplained and the same was added to the taxable income of the assessee for the A.Y.2018-19, treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld

Amolak Singh Bhatia, Bilaspur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-08, Delhi

ITA 3502/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 246

confirming the order of Ld. AO on account of professional receipt amounting to INR 3,00,0001- under Section 69B of the Act as unexplained investment without appreciating that there is no corroborative evidence or independent enquiry conducted by the Ld. AO during the Assessment Proceedings or giving an opportunity ... confirming the order of Ld. AO on account of professional receipt amounting to INR 1,75,000/- under Section 69B of the Act as unexplained investment without appreciating that there is no corroborative evidence or independent enquiry conducted by the Ld. AO during the Assessment Proceedings or giving an opportunity

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 5069/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

treated as unaccounted sales of assessee and he assumed this figure as turnover of assessee and estimated profit at 8% and estimated unexplained investment - Appeal was filed against said assessment order Meanwhile, Additional Commissioner forwarded a proposal to CIT for initiating proceedings under section 263 against assessee CIT issued ... happened in the company and assessee is merely a employee. However, it appears that the AO treated the deposit received from the investors as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee who appears to be a director in M/s. IFAMМА Builders and Developers Private Limited. 7. However, we fail

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

ITA 5068/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

treated as unaccounted sales of assessee and he assumed this figure as turnover of assessee and estimated profit at 8% and estimated unexplained investment - Appeal was filed against said assessment order Meanwhile, Additional Commissioner forwarded a proposal to CIT for initiating proceedings under section 263 against assessee CIT issued

Jagmohan Singh Bedi, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(1), Delhi

ITA 5067/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

treated as unaccounted sales of assessee and he assumed this figure as turnover of assessee and estimated profit at 8% and estimated unexplained investment - Appeal was filed against said assessment order Meanwhile, Additional Commissioner forwarded a proposal to CIT for initiating proceedings under section 263 against assessee CIT issued

Income Tax Officer, Dharamshala vs. The Rainkh Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., Kangra

ITA 404/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 404/Chd/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Ito, The Rainkh Co-Operative Agriculture Dharamshala (Hp). Vs Service Society Ltd., Vpo-Sehorpain, Tehsil-Jwalamukhi Distt. Kangra (Hp). "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aadat4807C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

these monies have been received from each member but ld. AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and made an addition of unexplained investment in the bank deposits. 4. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld.CIT (Appeals). The ld.CIT (Appeals) A.Y.2019-20

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3387/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained investment u/s.69. The (AO) also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), and 271AAC. Similar additions and penalties are levied in other years

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3386/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained investment u/s.69. The (AO) also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), and 271AAC. Similar additions and penalties are levied in other years

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3385/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained investment u/s.69. The (AO) also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), and 271AAC. Similar additions and penalties are levied in other years

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3384/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained investment u/s.69. The (AO) also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), and 271AAC. Similar additions and penalties are levied in other years

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3383/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Padmavathy S & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Rama, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unexplained money u/s.69A and unexplained investment u/s.69. The (AO) also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), and 271AAC. Similar additions and penalties are levied in other years

Alka Ashok Jagtap, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

ITA 7524/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaralka Ashok Jagtap Income Tax Office C-304, Regency Avenue Rani Mansion Syndicate, Murbad Road, Vs. Kalyan, Kalyan Kalyan West, Thane- 421301, Kalyan Pan/Gir No. Ahtpj7760J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Jain Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

common order dated 25.05.2018, held as under for A.Y. 2009–10: - the addition of Rs. 6,36,866/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in shares was deleted; - the amount of Rs. 6,47,054/-, though disclosed as LTCG, was sustained as income on the basis ... Capital Gain and offered to tax. The AR submitted that in the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer had treated Rs. 6,36,866/- as unexplained investment in shares under section 69. However, this entire addition was deleted by the CIT(A)-1, Thane in the common appellate order dated 25.05.2018.Thus

Jabbar Khan, Ghaziabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8602/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.8602/Del/2025