← 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

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle- 2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1232/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1232/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1594/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) and Sh. Sahil RatraFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 65BSection 69C

erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of Rs.20,59,380/- & Rs.1,29,35,806/- income from unexplained investment in stock during the AY 2021-22 was to be considered as unrecorded business income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 1.4 The Ld. AR advanced arguments ... basis of loose papers unless the same is corroborated by cogent evidences. It could be seen that no evidence of excess cash or unexplained investment by the assessee has been found during search proceedings since the only addition made is addition of alleged unaccounted sales. Therefore, the addition made

Saraf the Jeweller, Chandigarh vs. The DCIT/ACIT Central Circle -2, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1231/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1231/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Saraf The Jeweller Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 बनाम/ Sco 45, Pocket No.1 C.R. Building Nac Showroom, Manimajra Himalaya Marg, Vs. Chandigarh – 160101 Sector-17E, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit / Acit (Central)-2 Saraf The Jeweller बनाम/ C.R. Building Sco 45, Pocket No.1 Himalaya Marg, Nac Showroom, Manimajra Vs. Sector-17E, Chandigarh Chandigarh – 160101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adafs-2345-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) & Sh. Sahil Ratra (Advocate) – Ld. Ars By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68Section 69C

basis of loose papers unless the same is corroborated by cogent evidences. It could be seen that no evidence of excess cash or unexplained investment by the assessee has been found during search proceedings since the only addition made is addition of alleged unaccounted sales. Therefore, the addition made

Venkatesh, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 889/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:889/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 & S.A. No. 67/Chny/2026 [In Ita No. 889/Chny/2026] Shri Venkatesh, The Income Tax Officer, No.34-A, Baskaran Street, Vs. Ward 4, Tirunelveli Town S.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 006. Pan: Akfpv 8799N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Gunasekaran, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T.Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 17.12.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20. Ita No.889/Chny/2026 & :- 2 -: Sa No.67/Chny/2026 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The First Appellate Authority’S (Faa) Order Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To The Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority. Further, We Also Note That The Assessment Has Been Completed On Best Judgment Basis U/S.144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P. Gunasekaran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT
Section 144Section 148ASection 250Section 69

best judgment basis and considered the balance sum of ITA No.889/CHNY/2026 & :- 3 -: SA No.67/CHNY/2026 Rs.11,50,000/- (Rs.25,00,000 - Rs.13,50,000) as unexplained investment u/s. 69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before FAA also, the assessee ... record. It is observed that the assessment was completed by the AO on best judgment basis treating a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act on account of purchase of immovable property, since the assessee neither filed the return of income nor complied with

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Buildfolio Realties LLP, Rajkot

ITA 683/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Vs Buildfolio Realities Llp Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 683/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 Vs Buildfolio Realities Llp Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

Singh J. Juneja (2008) 302 ITR (63) (Guj) has held that in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales, the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said

Rama Devi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward- 8(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 825/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.825/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rama Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(2), Pan: Agepd7263N Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 03/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Rama Devi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 08/11/2023 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. Rama Devi Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 144Section 69A

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer in treating an amount of Rs. 15,99,760/- unexplained investment u/s 69A of the IT Act without giving any opportunity. 4. The learned commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)erred in confirming the order

Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1985/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1985/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Dayachary Ponnekanti, Hyderabad. Pan: Ahspp5496L Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar 02/03/2026 11/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dayachary Ponnekanti, ("The Assessee"), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)") Dated 08/10/2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO under section 69 as unexplained investment and failed to appreciate that a sum of Rs.2 crores were paid through banking channels. 8. On the facts and in circumstances of the case