← 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

M/S. Multiventure Hotesl Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-10(2) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1520/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Multiventure Vs. Ito – 10(2)(4) Hotels Pvt Ltd Room No. 213, 2Nd Shop No. 15, Anuradh Floor, Aayakar Society, Next To Fire Bhavan, Mk Road, Brigade, Sv Road, Irla Mumbai-400020 Bridge, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm4179E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 R.W.S.147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Multiventure Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Incorrect & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account unexplained investments of Rs. 1,27,900/- without considering the submissions made and facts of the case. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Suresh Seksaria, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsuresh Seksaria Vs. Cit(A) – Nfac 5Th Floor, Seksaria Delhi. Chambers, 139 Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0078K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ameet Patel.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ameet Patel.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69Section 69C

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: I. PURCAHSE OF DIAMONDS FROM M/S KAILASH ENTERPRISES AMOUNTING TO Rs.9,84,750/- TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Suresh Seksaria, Mumbai (herein ... referred to as 'CITA) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Office amounting to Rs.9,84,750 u/s. 69 as an unexplained investment on the ground that it is an accommodation entry for purchase of diamonds from M/S Kailash Enterprises and issued a cheque against that purchase