← 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

Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-19(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms above order

ITA 2203/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2203/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj, V. Dcit, 19 Al, Mudali Street, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Nehru Nagar, Chennai. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. [Pan:Aidpg 5262 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 197Section 69

read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.25,62,000/- as unexplained investment and added the same to the income of the assessee. The total income was thus assessed at Rs.32,15,060/- vide assessment order dated 25.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved ... consideration is whether the AO was justified in taxing the amount of Rs.25,62,000/- declared under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in Assessment Year 2017-18. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and the material placed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Saraf the Jewellers, Punjab

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1592/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) 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.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) 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 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68

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 Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cen-2 Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1230/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1230/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) 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.1592/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) 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 10.03.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) & Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) –
Section 115BSection 132Section 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 65BSection 68

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

Mitesh Suresh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 5593/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmitesh Suresh Shah Vs. Ito-International Tax 401, 4Th Floor, Blue Heaven, Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai Nehru Road, Vakola, Kautilya Bhavan, Pipeline, Santacruz (East), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400055 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan/Gir No. Auxps9395K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Adv. Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed U/S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. The Order Is Bad In Law, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction

Section 144CSection 147Section 68

case, and in law, no such addition was called for. 6. ADDITION OF Rs. 98,500/- u/s. 69 OF THE ACT AS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT 5 Mitesh Suresh Shah 6.1 It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the A.O. erred in making ... treating purchase consideration of alleged share transactions carried out by another 'Mr. Mitesh Shah" by misusing the PAN of the Appellant as alleged unexplained investment in the name of the Appellant. 6.2 While doing so, the A.O. erred in: (i) Basing his action only on surmises, suspicion and conjecture

Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya, Surat vs. Assessment Unit ITO Jurisdictional A O Ward-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 859/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.859/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Assessment Unit Ito बनाम B-76 Ramkrishna Society Jurisdictional Ao / L.H. Road Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Varachha Surat – 395 006 Ito Ward-3(3) Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blppm 3876 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 25/03/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time-Barred By 79 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya Vs.Ito Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 10,99,000/-as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Chintan Vrajlal Mangukiya vs.ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 5. On the facts and in the circumstances ... that the assessee could not furnish sufficient evidence to prove the source of the cash in hand. He held that the assessee had made unexplained investment and made the impugned addition of the total price of the car at Rs.10,99,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by the order

Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Ambala vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh, Central Circle Chandigarh

ITA 445/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.343/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.344/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.445/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal Dcit (Central-2) बनाम/ C/O Sh. Rajiv Goel & Associates Cr Building, Sector 17 179, Bank Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) -133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpa-8832-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-03-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 69

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs.72,00,000/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment in land plotting project near MDSD college on the basis of presumptions. 6.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts ... confirming the addition of Rs.1,56,51,832/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment in land plotting project near Ghail Road, Ambala City on the basis of presumptions. 7.That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the order passed u/s 153A