← 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

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smitkumar P. Kaneria, Rajkot

ITA 35/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee under stated the value of the land to a large extent as the unexplained investment made towards on-money was never disclosed by the assesses in their return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. There was escapement of income within ... Bhavnaben B. Rangani & Ors. - 17 - opinion of the Ld. AO. Besides, buyers paid huge interest for cash payment and thus, the element of unexplained investment appeared to be the sole basis upon which the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.2,45,25,729/- on substantive basis

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Bhavnaben B. Panchani, Rajkot

ITA 29/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee under stated the value of the land to a large extent as the unexplained investment made towards on-money was never disclosed by the assesses in their return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. There was escapement of income within ... Bhavnaben B. Rangani & Ors. - 17 - opinion of the Ld. AO. Besides, buyers paid huge interest for cash payment and thus, the element of unexplained investment appeared to be the sole basis upon which the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.2,45,25,729/- on substantive basis

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Panchshilaben Jawaharbhai Mori, Rajkot

ITA 28/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee under stated the value of the land to a large extent as the unexplained investment made towards on-money was never disclosed by the assesses in their return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. There was escapement of income within ... Bhavnaben B. Rangani & Ors. - 17 - opinion of the Ld. AO. Besides, buyers paid huge interest for cash payment and thus, the element of unexplained investment appeared to be the sole basis upon which the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.2,45,25,729/- on substantive basis

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Dimpleben Smitkumar Kaneria, Rajkot

ITA 24/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee under stated the value of the land to a large extent as the unexplained investment made towards on-money was never disclosed by the assesses in their return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. There was escapement of income within ... Bhavnaben B. Rangani & Ors. - 17 - opinion of the Ld. AO. Besides, buyers paid huge interest for cash payment and thus, the element of unexplained investment appeared to be the sole basis upon which the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.2,45,25,729/- on substantive basis

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Shri Bhupendra Trikamji Panchani, Rajkot

ITA 23/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee under stated the value of the land to a large extent as the unexplained investment made towards on-money was never disclosed by the assesses in their return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. There was escapement of income within ... Bhavnaben B. Rangani & Ors. - 17 - opinion of the Ld. AO. Besides, buyers paid huge interest for cash payment and thus, the element of unexplained investment appeared to be the sole basis upon which the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.2,45,25,729/- on substantive basis

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Bhavnaben Bhovanbhai Rangani, Rajkot

ITA 22/RJT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 22/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Smt. Bhavnaben बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Bhovanbhai Rangani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 701, Ratrani Tower, Nr. Bhaktidham Temple, Panchvati Main Road, Rajkot-05 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abupr5242C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 23/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Shri Bhupendra Trikamji बनाम/ Of Income-Tax Panchani Vs. Central Circle-1, Rajkot 11-A, “Akashdeep”, Sai Nagar Society, B/H. Ramdham Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjpp7612B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 24/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner बनाम/ Smt. Dimpleben

Revenue was of the opinion that the assessee under stated the value of the land to a large extent as the unexplained investment made towards on-money was never disclosed by the assesses in their return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. There was escapement of income within ... Bhavnaben B. Rangani & Ors. - 17 - opinion of the Ld. AO. Besides, buyers paid huge interest for cash payment and thus, the element of unexplained investment appeared to be the sole basis upon which the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs.2,45,25,729/- on substantive basis

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Sumit Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 833/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

assessee in the ratio of their respective ownership. The addition of Rs. 2,60,71,350/- was made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the property on the basis of Valuation Report. Similar additions were made in the hands of Kailash Mittal and Aanishka Mittal being ... hereunder: “I have gone through the submissions, records and order of the AO. It is observed that addition has been made on account of unexplained investment in the property. All the grounds of appeal are mainly directed on one issue that the proceedings were initiated and order was passed when

DCIT Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Kailash Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 831/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

assessee in the ratio of their respective ownership. The addition of Rs. 2,60,71,350/- was made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the property on the basis of Valuation Report. Similar additions were made in the hands of Kailash Mittal and Aanishka Mittal being ... hereunder: “I have gone through the submissions, records and order of the AO. It is observed that addition has been made on account of unexplained investment in the property. All the grounds of appeal are mainly directed on one issue that the proceedings were initiated and order was passed when

DCIT Circle-20, Delhi vs. Aanshika Mittal, Delhi

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasl. Ita/Co No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2011-12 Dcit Sumit Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 2. Co No.9/Del/2023 -Do- Sumit Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.833/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aegpm 9069 R) Delhi 3. -Do- Dcit Kailash Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West Delhi, Delhi-110 035 4. Co No.10/Del/2023 -Do- Kailash Mittal Dcit (In Ita No.831/Del/2022) Circle – 20 (Pan : Aaipm 8100 H) Delhi 5. -Do- Dcit Aanshika Mittal Circle – 20 A-23/01, Lawrence Road, Delhi Industrial Area, North West, New Delhi -110 035 (Pan : Adupa 7586 J) Assessee By Shri Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.11.2023 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

assessee in the ratio of their respective ownership. The addition of Rs. 2,60,71,350/- was made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the property on the basis of Valuation Report. Similar additions were made in the hands of Kailash Mittal and Aanishka Mittal being ... hereunder: “I have gone through the submissions, records and order of the AO. It is observed that addition has been made on account of unexplained investment in the property. All the grounds of appeal are mainly directed on one issue that the proceedings were initiated and order was passed when