← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Raipur vs. Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka, Pandri

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 77/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Assistant Commissioner – Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs Prop. Goyal Sales, Central Circle -2, Raipur. Behind Mata Garage, Near Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadpf 2412 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ca सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2023

For Appellant: DR Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr
Section 115Section 115BSection 133A

argument and contentions of the Ld AR on the following aspects: a. Ld AO himself has observed that the Excess Stock or Unexplained investment or cash surrendered during the course of survey operations was nothing but the accumulation of profits which the assessee has been systematically enjoying and hence difference ... reason that in the case of M/s.Shree Sita Udyog v. DCIT (supra), the AO himself has observed that the excess stock or unexplained investment or cash surrender during the course of survey operations was nothing, but the accumulation of profits which the assessee has been systematically enjoying and hence difference

Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. - 4, Surat

ITA 142/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील (खोज और ज"ती) सं./It(Ss)A Nos.32/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan, Vs. The Acit, E-2-1101, Capital Greens, Vesu Central Circle-4, – Bharthana, Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk8161R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 150(1)Section 154

ITA.142/SRT/2023, IT(SS)A.32, 65 – 67/SRT/2023 & Cos. 11 -12/SRT/2023 Rajendraprasad Babulal Khetan Rs.3,61,00,000/- in the hands of assessee as unaccounted/ unexplained investment. The ld Counsel submitted that said MOU is not at all relevant in case of assessee. As mentioned by assessing officer ... same to assessee and straight away made the addition of whole of amount in the hands of assessee by assuming the same as unexplained investment. The assessee also submitted that the addition is also beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act, as the same is not based

Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Mudaliyar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3 Thane, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2894/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rameshvar P Meena/Nimesh

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred making addition of Rs.12,43,46,000/- on account of Unexplained investment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without considering the facts ... file any submissions in response to the show cause. The AO, therefore added the cash paid by the assessee to M/s VIPL as his unexplained investment, and the cash received from M/s VIPL by way of unexplained monies, across all AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. Aggrieved by A.Ys

Krishnamoorthy Ramlinngam Mudaliyar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3 Thane, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2893/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2894/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2895/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2893/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishnamoorthy Ramlingam Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Mudaliyar 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Vs. Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Ashar It Park, Road-16- Avenue, Sector-36, Plot No. Z, Wagle Industrial 27, Kamothe, Navi Estate, Thane-(W)- Mumbai-410218. 400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.313/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Central Circle-3 बिधम/ Krishnamoorthy 6Th Floor, Room No. 12, Ramlingam Mudaliyar Vs. Ashar It Park, Road-16-Z, Flat No. 904, Maa Laxmi Wagle Industrial Estate, Avenue, Sector-36, Plot Thane-(W)-400604. No. 27, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-410218. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajzpm6207H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rameshvar P Meena/Nimesh

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT(A) erred making addition of Rs.12,43,46,000/- on account of Unexplained investment. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition without considering the facts ... file any submissions in response to the show cause. The AO, therefore added the cash paid by the assessee to M/s VIPL as his unexplained investment, and the cash received from M/s VIPL by way of unexplained monies, across all AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18. Aggrieved by A.Ys

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

fair hearing. - [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 77s (SC) As per Section - 69, Income-tax Act, l961-Unexplained investments. "Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments WHICH ARE NOT RECORD€D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

fair hearing. - [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 77s (SC) As per Section - 69, Income-tax Act, l961-Unexplained investments. "Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments WHICH ARE NOT RECORD€D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

fair hearing. - [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 77s (SC) As per Section - 69, Income-tax Act, l961-Unexplained investments. "Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments WHICH ARE NOT RECORD€D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT

Mr. Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Salepur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

fair hearing. - [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 77s (SC) As per Section - 69, Income-tax Act, l961-Unexplained investments. "Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments WHICH ARE NOT RECORD€D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT