← 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

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

amount of Rs.3,01,74,004/- is therefore added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act as unexplained investment. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Act to be initiated simultaneously for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and also for concealment ... year, there were cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 3,01,74,004/-. The AO in absence of concrete details, held them as unexplained investment and made an addition u/s. 69C of the Act. 8.1 During the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted that

Late Shri K.Kandasamy Rep by L/H Smt. K.Amirtham, Trichy vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Trichy

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

ITA 1522/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1522/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Late Shri K. Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By L/H Smt. K. Amirtham, Vs. Ward – 1(2), No.52, Dindigul Main Road, Trichy. Karumandapam, Trichy – 620 001. Pan : Awgpk 0750R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy In Ita No.260/2014-15/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 24.04.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-I(2), Tiruchirappalli For The Assessment Year 2007-08, U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 26.03.2015. 2. The Only Issue Remains For Adjudication Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Computing Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Land Situated At Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore Admeasuring 6.75½ Acres For A Consideration Of Rs.45 Lakhs As Per Sale Deed But Addition Confirmed Based On Sworn Statement Of The Assessee Admitting The Sale Consideration At Rs.2,63,99,250/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

this, he referred to para 6.5.5 of CIT(A)’s order in the case of Shri Balasaravanan, which reads as under:- “6.5.5. The unexplained investment, if any, will have to be taxed in the financial year relevant to the assessment years in which the said statement has been made. Direction ... u/s.54EC & 54F of the Act and also not considered the assessment framed in the purchasers namely Shri M. Balasaravanan by the AO, wherein only unexplained investment to the extent of Rs.42,27,780/- was considered. Even the CIT(A) has passed cryptic and non-speaking order and that also