← 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

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 385/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. Of Income Tax, Pan: Agfpg8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid) राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 15/10/2025 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Ravish Sood, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 & 16/04/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 Of The Income Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi Vs. Acit Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act”), Dated 27/03/2023; Under Section 271Aac(1) Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023; & Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 21/08/2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. As The Facts Involved In The Captioned Appeals Are Inextricably Interwoven, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Of Vide A Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.21,35,549 made by the assessing officer u/s 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment in flats. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,52,520 of made ... that the assessee had no explanation regarding the source of acquisition of the said two immovable properties (assets). Accordingly, the AO worked out the unexplained investment made by the assessee during the subject year at Rs. 21,35,549/-, as under: Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi vs. ACIT 10. Thereafter

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1526/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

amount of time deposits of Rs.7,44,39,182/- made by the assessee in its bank account with State Bank of Hyderabad as its unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/02/2024, determined

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1525/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

amount of time deposits of Rs.7,44,39,182/- made by the assessee in its bank account with State Bank of Hyderabad as its unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/02/2024, determined

Satavahana University, Karimnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

ITA 1524/HYD/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1524/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1525/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1526/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Satavahana University, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Karimnagar. Pan: Aaajs4101N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement: Satavahana University Vs. Ito आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 10Section 10(230)Section 115BSection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

amount of time deposits of Rs.7,44,39,182/- made by the assessee in its bank account with State Bank of Hyderabad as its unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 14/02/2024, determined

ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1648/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1647 & 1648/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Stn Properties Private Limited, 6/24, Eb Colony, 1St Main Road, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Adambakkam, Tambaram, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Aakcs6317F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)–20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2014-15. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

transactions based on which additions are made during the year in the hands of appellant company are actually carried out by Sri T.S. Nedunselian, unexplained investment/ unaccounted expenditure/ Undisclosed Business income, arising if any, is to be taxed in hands of Sri T.S Nedunselian but not in hands of appellant