← 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

Shri. Omprakash Ramnjor Shukla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these grounds of appeal are allowed

ITA 4496/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Omprakash Ramnjor Shukla, Building No.6, Near Hdfc Bank, 90 Feet Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400101 Pan: Aaips3152R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-16(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Jayesh Dadia, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. R A Dhyani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’] Dated 02.04.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Jayesh Dadia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R A Dhyani, Sr. DR
Section 68

erred in law and on the facts of case in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the following additions on account unexplained investment in land immovable property: a) Rs. 20,000/- as unexplained investment in plot at Viatarana b) Rs 1, 46,000/- as unexplained investment ... agricultural land c) Rs. 13, 90,230/ -as unexplained investment in residential house at Kandivali d) Rs.10,12,500/- as income from sale consideration on sale of Panvel property. e) Rs. 34, 00,000/- as income from sale consideration on sale of Malad property. The action is unjustified and without