← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Smt R Meena, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 722/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. R. Meena, No. 13, 1St Main Road, The Income-Tax Officer, Ankappa Reddy Layout, Ward 4 (2)(1), Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. C V Raman Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Agrpm0228K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 40 Lakhs Made On The Basis Of Statement Recorded Of Husband Of Assessee Who Offered An Additional Income On Account Of Inflated Expenses Found During The Course Of Survey Proceedings. 2. On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Delete The Addition Made On Account Of Payment Reduced In Cash Book At Rs.3,41,918/-, Cash Expenses Of Rs. 3 Lakhs Without Calling For Report From The Ao & Accepting The Additional Evidence & Explanation Submitted By The Assessee In Contravention Of The Rule 46A.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 148Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69B

facts of the case and as per law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the addition made on account of unexplained investment of Rs.1,04,53,000/- without calling the report from the AO and accepting the additional evidence and explanation submitted by the assessee in contravention ... Bank payments reduced in cash book – Rs. 3,41,918/- C. Cash payment disallowed u/s. 40A(3) – Rs. 3,00,000/- D. Unexplained investments held u/s. 69B – Rs. 1,04,53,000/- 3. Aggrieved by the above additions, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A) considered the additions

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5526/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dhiraj Jain Dcit C/O. Prakash K. Prakash Central Circle-3, B-1, Sagar Apartments, 6, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aadpj4043R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O.No. 16/Del/2012 In (Ita No. 5525/Del/2011 ( A.Y 2005-06) Vs Dheeraj Kumar Jain Acit C/215, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-3 New Delhi Room No. 355, Ara Pan: Aadpj4043R Centre,E-2,Jhandewalan (Appellant) Extension, New Delhi (Respondent) Vs Dhiraj Jain Dcit C/O. Prakash K. Prakash Central Circle-3, B-1, Sagar Apartments, 6, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aadpj4043R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Dheeraj Kumar Jain Central Circle-3 C/215, Vivek Vihar, Room No. 355, New Delhi Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan Pan: Aadpj4043R (Respondent) Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) C.O No. 19/Del/2012 ( A.Y 2007-08) In (In Ita No. 5527/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08 ) Dheeraj Kumar Jain Vs Acit C/215, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-3 New Delhi Room No. 355, Ara Pan: Aadpj4043R Centre,E-2,Jhandewalan (Appellant) Extension, New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153CSection 2Section 68Section 69

case Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 84,50,000/-as made by the A.O. u/s 69 as unexplained investment in Property No. 76, Vigyan Lok New Delhi. 1. That the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed

Dhiraj Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4711/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dhiraj Jain Dcit C/O. Prakash K. Prakash Central Circle-3, B-1, Sagar Apartments, 6, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aadpj4043R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O.No. 16/Del/2012 In (Ita No. 5525/Del/2011 ( A.Y 2005-06) Vs Dheeraj Kumar Jain Acit C/215, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-3 New Delhi Room No. 355, Ara Pan: Aadpj4043R Centre,E-2,Jhandewalan (Appellant) Extension, New Delhi (Respondent) Vs Dhiraj Jain Dcit C/O. Prakash K. Prakash Central Circle-3, B-1, Sagar Apartments, 6, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aadpj4043R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Dheeraj Kumar Jain Central Circle-3 C/215, Vivek Vihar, Room No. 355, New Delhi Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan Pan: Aadpj4043R (Respondent) Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) C.O No. 19/Del/2012 ( A.Y 2007-08) In (In Ita No. 5527/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08 ) Dheeraj Kumar Jain Vs Acit C/215, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-3 New Delhi Room No. 355, Ara Pan: Aadpj4043R Centre,E-2,Jhandewalan (Appellant) Extension, New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153CSection 2Section 68Section 69

case Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 84,50,000/-as made by the A.O. u/s 69 as unexplained investment in Property No. 76, Vigyan Lok New Delhi. 1. That the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed

Dhiraj Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4710/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dhiraj Jain Dcit C/O. Prakash K. Prakash Central Circle-3, B-1, Sagar Apartments, 6, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aadpj4043R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O.No. 16/Del/2012 In (Ita No. 5525/Del/2011 ( A.Y 2005-06) Vs Dheeraj Kumar Jain Acit C/215, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-3 New Delhi Room No. 355, Ara Pan: Aadpj4043R Centre,E-2,Jhandewalan (Appellant) Extension, New Delhi (Respondent) Vs Dhiraj Jain Dcit C/O. Prakash K. Prakash Central Circle-3, B-1, Sagar Apartments, 6, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, Tilak Marg, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, Pan: Aadpj4043R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Dheeraj Kumar Jain Central Circle-3 C/215, Vivek Vihar, Room No. 355, New Delhi Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan Pan: Aadpj4043R (Respondent) Extension, New Delhi (Appellant) C.O No. 19/Del/2012 ( A.Y 2007-08) In (In Ita No. 5527/Del/2011 (A.Y 2007-08 ) Dheeraj Kumar Jain Vs Acit C/215, Vivek Vihar, Central Circle-3 New Delhi Room No. 355, Ara Pan: Aadpj4043R Centre,E-2,Jhandewalan (Appellant) Extension, New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153CSection 2Section 68Section 69

case Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 84,50,000/-as made by the A.O. u/s 69 as unexplained investment in Property No. 76, Vigyan Lok New Delhi. 1. That the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed