← 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

Sunilkumar M. Akkarakaran, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5622/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 5622/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13 ) Sunilkumar M. Akkarakaran, A-101, Ankit Co-Op Hsg Society, Oppkasturi Plaza, Manpada Road, Dombivili East – 421 201. Pan: Aedpa-1192-C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle -3, Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan (West) - 421 301 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : None ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Hosang B. Irani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Notice Of Hearing Of The Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee Through Rpad At The Address Mentioned In Form No.36. Despite Repeated Notices, Neither The Assessee Nor The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee Has 2 Ever Appeared On Any Of The Date Of Hearing. The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal & The Date Of Issue Of Notice Are Tabulated Herein Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hosang B. Irani
Section 37(1)Section 68

made by the Assessing Officer under section 37(1) of the Act. Further addition of Rs.1,06,49,387/- was made on account of unexplained investments under section. 69 and 69B of the Act. In first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) deleted the addition wherever the assessee could explain