← 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

Ramesh Karaka, Ardhavaram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ramesh Karaka Vs. Income Tax Officer 1-47, Velamapeta Ward-1 Ardhavaram Tanuku Ganapavaram Mandalam West Godavari [Pan : Eiepk7762M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 28.02.2023 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

tune of Rs.31,04,000/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that Rs.31,04,000/- is 3 I.T.A. No.50/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Ramesh Karaka,Velamapeta taxable as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act at the applicable rate of 60% u/s 115BBE. A show cause letter dated 9/12/2019 was issued to the assessee ... requesting to explain why the amount of Rs.31,04,000/- should not be treated as unexplained investment u/s 69. Since there was no compliance to the show cause notice, the AO determined the total taxable income at Rs.31,45,990/- and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) dated