“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

Presidium Educational & Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 216/DEL/2025[2012-13 and further year]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

Matharoo in systematic tax evasion i.e. raising funds from public through cash and cheque, siphoning of funds from trusts/ societies for personal use and unexplained investments. The cases belonging to Smt Sudha Gupta and Shri Devendra Gupta group including the assessee were centralized to Central Circle 29 from Circle (Exemptions

Divine Educational and Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 215/DEL/2025[2014-15 and further years]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

Nathaneil Junior Education Society, Delhi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Delhi

In the result, the assessees’ appeals are allowed

ITA 214/DEL/2025[2014-15 and Further Years]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025

Section 120Section 127Section 12ASection 143Section 3

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ;ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1269/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 on account of cash credit and addition made u/s 69 as unexplained investments which tantamount to double taxation of the same amount in the hands of the appellant. 14.0 That the appellant craves leave, to add, to amend ... 20/12/2019 by making an addition of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- on account of credit entry and Rs. 55,82,500/- on account of unexplained investment. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 20/12/2019, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 27/01/2025

Passion Realtech Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeals in ITA

ITA 1268/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

Delight Propcon Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1267/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Delight Propcon Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Shop No. 68, Building Income Tax, No. 38, Surya House, Near Central Circle-Ii, New Cgo Pnb Devil Road, Khanpur, Complex, N. H. Iv, Nit New Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Pan: Aadcd6203E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By Sh. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 68

Rakesh Chopra, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4807/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Chopra, Vs. Income Tax Officer, J-369, New Rajinder Nagar Ward-50(3), Room No.1409, E- Delhi-110060 2, Block, Civic Centre, Delhi-110060 Pan No:-Addpc4553C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Manju Goel, Ca & Shri B.L. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .11.2025

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

/147 of the Act on 12.12.2018 by making an addition of Rs.50,50,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 12.12.2018, Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 05.09.2024, dismissed

Shri Subash Gupta, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 671/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, C. A

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 69

pertains to the addition of Rs. 1,81,17,500/-under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which was made on account of unexplained investment. 6.3. The appellant stated to be engaged in the sale/purchase of immovable property, rental income, and is a partner in a partnership firm

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 833/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.833/Srt/2024

Section 144BSection 148Section 149Section 250

Kushal Ltd. nor that the aforementioned stock/scrip was not a penny stock. Hence, the AO treated the amount transacted of Rs.84,32,905/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Further, the AO added an amount of Rs.2,52,987/- (3% of Rs.84,32,905/-) on account of commission

Chenniappa Gounder Deivasigamani, Kangayam vs. Ward I(4) / Tirupur, Tirupur

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

ITA 2380/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2380/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Chenniappa Gounder The Income Tax Officer, Deivasigamani, Vs. Ward 1(4), 565/4-A, Tirupur Sivamathy Modern Rice Mill, Agasthilingampalayam Road, Tiruppur – 638 701. Pan: Aenpd 8814L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Harinandha Kumar, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Harinandha Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

demonetized currency from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and received demonetized currency of Rs.57.29 crores, which was added by AO u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.57.29 crores is received by assessee on :- 6 -: account of sale of liquor as no contrary evidence was produced by Revenue ... IMFS and beer to the customers and accepted demonetized currency in return is to be assessed u/s.69 of the Act or not as unexplained investment. The ld.Senior DR has raised a question on this that when there was an express bar by Government on transacting business from 09.11.2016 in SBNs

Sada Bahadur Ramadhar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office - 30(2)(6), Mumbai

ITA 5998/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Sada Bahadur Ramadhar Gupta Ito-30(2)(6) 11, Neelkanth Society, Off Link Kautilya Bhavan Road, Malad West Vs. Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400 064. Complex, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aegpg7498N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vivek PerampurnaFor Respondent: Shri Akshay Shah

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 56(2)Section 69

Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, the Ld. AO made additions on two issues. First being unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act based on merely the statement of a third party to the extent of Rs. 42 lakh. Second addition made by the Ld. AO relates

Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulbhai Vitthalbhai Kakadia बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, 301, B/H Golden Point, Anmol Vs. Ward-3(1)(5), Complex Nana Varachha, Surat - 395001 Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aowpk 3567 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Exchange (MCX). The assessee made investment of Rs.89,200/-, the source of which could not be explained. The AO has added Rs.89,200/- as unexplained investment in the assessment order. As per provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, no notice u/s 148 shall be issued for relevant

Minakshi Kishor Lolge, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward-Hingoli, Parbhani

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1962/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Minakshi Kishor Lolge, V The Income Tax Officer, Takli Kumbhakarna, Parbhani, S Ward Hingoli, Parbhani. Maharashtra – 431540. Pan: Bcypl7838J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule (Through Virtual Hearing) –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2019-20 Dated 24.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing Officer has erred in treating Bank Fixed deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing officer has mechanically reopened and approving authority ... doesn't belong to her and it belongs to her husband. Hence, the time deposit amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee.” 6. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT

Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Shri Muktsar Sahib

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

ITA 666/ASR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, 2640 Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Gurdev Nagar Ferozepur Road, Muktsar. Ludhiana, Punjab. [Pan:-Daapb9062E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

response from the assessee, to various notices issued, the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.27.17 lakhs being the amount of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.2 In course of first appellate proceedings various notices were issued from the office

Hushn Jahan, Amethi vs. Income Tax Officer Amethi, Amethi

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

ITA 68/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 69A

have been disputed before the ld. First Appellate Authority and accordingly cash deposits in her bank account could not have been treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act; (8) Link between business receipts and cash deposited (in Bank Account) was established before ld. Assessing Officer by submitting

Ram Kumar Maurya, Bhadohi vs. ITO, Ward - 1(5), Bhadohi

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

ITA 140/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ram Kumar Maurya V. The Income Tax Officer Parkritkar Khamaria Ward 1(5) Bhadohi (U.P) Bhadohi Tan/Pan:Babpm1314H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. On The Basis Of The Information In Possession Of The Income Tax Department That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.12,84,330/- In His Saving Bank Account No.28260100004067 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Khamaria Branch, Bhadohi, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Statutory Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 282Section 69

notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the addition of Rs.14,62,774/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as alleged unexplained investment by invoking section 69 of the Act. 6. BECAUSE the deposits in the bank account having been duly considered by the appellant in his return ... authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in adding Rs.14,62,774/- as alleged unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is wholly erroneous. 7. BECAUSE the memorandum of appeal filed by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals) in Form 35 had specifically opted

Mohammad Ghufran, Kaushambi vs. ITO - 2(5), Kaushambi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit SinghFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

such enormous addition. 3. Because Addition was made without appreciating the facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs. 26,80,000/- u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment is bad, illegal and deserves to be deleted. ITA No.126/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 6 4. Because the Order is bad in the eyes

Kailash Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. ACIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 68/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

Section 153A

undisclosed transaction 5,00,000/- undisclosed income 2012-13 12,71,250/- rough & dumb document 18,00,000/- undisclosed expenditure 6.75 crore unexplained investment 2.1 Aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The I.T.A. Nos.29 ... undisclosed transaction 5,00,000 undisclosed income 2012-13 7,71,250 rough & dumb document 10,00,000 undisclosed expenditure 6 crore unexplained investment 2.2 The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings

Kailash Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. ACIT(CC), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 47/ALLD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

Section 153A

Kailash Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. ACIT(C.C.), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 29/ALLD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria, Ju Dicial Member

Section 153A