← 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

ITO (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6755/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ao Without Any Reasonable Cause & Despite Being Given Sufficient Opportunities?" (B) "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Accepting Additional Evidence Is Not Correct As Per Judgment Of The Delhi High Court In Case Of M/S. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204Taxmann 106(Delhi) 2. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Addition U/S. 68 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Cannot Be Made In This Case, Because The Ao Has Not Made Addition U/S. 68, But Has Made The Addition As An Unexplained Investment Which Is Subject Matter Of Section 69 Of The I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Source Of Investment Amounting To Rs. 25.37 Crs. In M/S. Rajesh Exports Ltd. By The Assessee Lies In Dubai On 2 Shri Sandeep Dhirajlal Dhakan

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 69

cannot be made in this case, because the AO has not made addition u/s. 68, but has made the addition as an unexplained investment which is subject matter of section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1 961 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Limited, I am left with no other option but to make an addition of Rs. 25.37 Crores to the income of the assessee, as Unexplained Investments made by the assessee under the head Income from Other Sources. Penalty proceedings U/s. 271(l)(c) of the IT, Act, are initiated separately

Uni Design Jewellery (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assesse appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1983/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleuni Design Jewellery Vs. Dcit, Cc-1(2) (India) Pvt Ltd., 904, 9Th Floor, Old Plot No. 3, Uni Design Cgo Bldg, Mk Road, House, Seepzwicel, Opp Mumbai-400020. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu3940J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vijay Mehta.C A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N. Kabra.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 48,Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta.C A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N. Kabra.Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

addition of Rs. 5,90,010/- u/s 69B of the Act by treat ing difference between physical stock and book stock of pearls as unexplained investment. The appellant prays that the said addition may be deleted. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter any/ or amend the foregoing grounds ... respect of the value of excess stock of Rs.5,90,010/- found in pearls is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.11,32,16,240/- and passed the order U/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.03.2014. 4. Aggrieved