“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

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

cash receipt from unverifiable sources. Therefore, it falls within the ambit of the Section 69B of the Act. Accordingly, the same was added as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act read with section 155BBE of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 9.2. In the appellate proceedings ... aggregating sum of Rs. 51,57,830/- and opined thatthese purchases were sourced from out of books/unexplained cash receipts and treated it as unexplained investment u/s 698 of the Act in the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 9.2.2. However, the assessee had contested in its submission that the jewelry was purchased

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and

ITA 1496/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

cash receipt from unverifiable sources. Therefore, it falls within the ambit of the Section 69B of the Act. Accordingly, the same was added as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act read with section 155BBE of the Act in the hands of the assessee, 9.2. In the appellate proceedings ... aggregating sum of Rs. 51,57,830/- and opined thatthese purchases were sourced from out of books/unexplained cash receipts and treated it as unexplained investment u/s 698 of the Act in the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 9.2.2. However, the assessee had contested in its submission that the jewelry was purchased

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &

Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

Allavudin Muhapadma Beevi, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2961/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2961/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Allavudin Muhapadma Beevi, Income Tax Officer, No.14, Nallathsingal Street, Ward-1(2), Shevapet, Salem, Salem. Tamil Nadu-636 002. [Pan: Aimpm7048N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Vasudevan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 148

r.w.s. 143(3) of the income tax Act, 1961. While doing so, the assessing officer made addition of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of unexplained investment in the construction of building for the alleged failure of the appellant to explain the source of the cost of construction of the building ... investment in the construction of building was properly explained and the assessing officer ought not to have made the addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs.10 lakhs and no addition could be made merely based on the statement of the appellant recorded during the course of survey proceedings. However

Sanjitha Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1173/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

paid Page 4 of 6 in cash and since no explanations were offered by the assessee, the AO had treated the said amount as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act and to that effect, a show cause notice was issued. Finally, the assessee filed her reply to the said

Sri. M. Srinivasulu, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bellary

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

ITA 1393/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. Srinivasulu Metri, Vs. Dcit, 168/C 18Th Ward Near Water Booster, Circle – 1(1) Gandhi Nagar, Bellary – 583 103, Karnataka. Bellary. Pan : Anops 2178 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

case of the assessee on 28.09.2010. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of search, assessee offered Rs.12 lakhs as unexplained investment income towards excess jewellery found. Assessee furnished details and from the details, it was observed from the P&L A/c that there is opening

Comet Enterprise, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5090/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Respondent: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (Virtually appear)

Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

related to one main issue (i.e.) addition of Rs.12,35,00,000/ main issue (i.e.) addition of Rs.12,35,00,000/- as unexplained as unexplained investment u/s 6 investment u/s 69 of the Act they are taken up together for 9 of the Act they are taken up together ... trace these funds legitimately. The AO, therefore, held that the trace these funds legitimately. The AO, therefore, held that the investment was an unexplained investment within the meaning of investment was an unexplained investment within the meaning of investment was an unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69, since

Pawan Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 60(1), Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 4536/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4535 & 4536/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 & 2017-18 बनाम Pawan Kumar Sharma, Assistant Commissioner Of C-9/62, Yamuna Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. Income Tax, Pan No.Alwps4681A Circle 60(1), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250

both these cases additions have been made u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits and alleged unexplained investments. In ITA 4536 there is an additional addition of Rs.1.64 lakhs u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Both these appeals pertained to ex parte orders

Pawan Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 60(1), Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 4535/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Section 144Section 250

Navjot Kaur, Subhanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: first appellate authority and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Jain (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 44ASection 69

impugned deposits. The assessee failed to make any representation during assessment proceedings and accordingly, Ld. AO added the deposits of Rs.23.79 Lacs as unexplained investment / money to the returned income of Rs.1.77 Lacs and framed the assessment. 3. During first appeal, the assessee, in statement of facts, stated that

Dushyantbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1721/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 210Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeal of the appellant without considering facts and documents on records and therefore the addition made by A.O. of Rs. 23,00,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 required to be deleted. 02. That the Ld. assessing officer has re-open the case of the appellant after 4 years without

Aravindan Rengasamy, Chennai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3297/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3297/Chny/2025 & S.A No.115/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aravindan Rengasamy, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income C/O. Sundaram & Narayanan, Vs. Tax (International Taxation), Chartered Accountants, Madurai. 18 Balaiah Avenune, Luz Churchroad, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Apupr 6827B

For Appellant: Mr.K. Meenakshi Sundaram, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

proceedings, due to which the Id. AO has assessed LTCG of Rs.2,10,741. 3. Addition of Rs.1,81,89,797 u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment towards purchase of securities from NSE is liable to be deleted since the assessee has purchased securities from NSE for higher total value ... paper book submitted u/r 18 in in support of this ground. 4. Addition of Rs.6,77,28,197 u/s 69 r.w.s 285BA(1) as Unexplained investment, which is purportedly reported by ICICI Bank as mentioned in Item No.9 in the Table in 148A(b) notice dt. 06.03.2023, towards purchase

Yogendrakumar Kishongopal Rajpuria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4681/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Subhash KediaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 144

cheque loan of Rs 5,00,000/- to Raj Kumar Dalmia and cash loan of Rs 5,00,000/- to Balmohan Agrawal as unexplained investment under the head income from other sources. On appeal the Ld. Addl/CIT(A) issued various notices and finally dismissed the appeal stating that the assessee

Jamaluddin S/O Shri Chunir Ahmed, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3551/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

persuasive value, however, a closer scrutiny of the same leads us to the conclusion that the said decision was rendered in the context of unexplained investments as per the scheme of Section 69 of the Act. In Paradise Holidays, the issue pertained to the rejection of books of account without

Jamaluddin, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3550/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Brawny Nivesh P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 3Section 47Section 56Section 56(2)(via)Section 56(2)(viia)

circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.98,56,165/- as unexplained investments on the reason that the Sundry Debtors are fictitious is contrary to the settled principles of law and the addition is arbitrary, excessive ... circumstances of the case the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 98.56.165/- as unexplained investments by partly treating the bogus Sundry Debtors of A.Y. 2014-15 is against the settled principles of law and the addition is arbitrary. excessive

Suvas Hitendrabhai Barot, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1401/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 271ASection 69

said notices, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash payment of ₹49,20,565/- as Suvas Hitendrabhai Barot vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and assessed the same as income from other sources, chargeable to tax under section 115BBE

Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2195/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 457,81,200/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the act? 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting ... substantiate the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ₹4,57,81,200/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section

Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

broadly to digital evidences and WhatsApp chats indicating forty-one property transactions, the assessment order did not rely on any specific incriminating document establishing unexplained investment or unexplained money. Instead, the AO placed primary emphasis on the assessee’s statement under section ... statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and on general references to digital material without identifying any specific incriminating document evidencing unexplained investment or unexplained money. The CIT(Appeals), on the other hand, has examined the record in a balanced manner and has rightly held that the seized

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Shah, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A