“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

Rajesh Poddar, Surat vs. ACIT Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

ITA 547/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69BSection 69C

account of undisclosed investment in the property at Block No.97 Gaviyar. Regarding of Rs.3,48,27,683/- u/s 69B on account of unexplained investment on jewellery, the CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs.24,58,397/- and deleted the remaining amount. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly ... money paid by the assessee and Shri Kedar Jagirdar and accordingly 50% of the on-money i.e., Rs.2,13,00,000/- was added as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act in the hands of assessee. 13. Aggrieved with above addition, the assessee filed appeal before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat vs. Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat

ITA 164/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,37,75,000/- i.e. 25% of unexplained investment of Rs.13.511 Cr. Without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to prove that the valuation was made for loan purpose ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs.28,80,49,899/- made u/s 69B of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained investment in purchase of the land, despite the fact that the valuation of the property and price of land including payment of ‘On-Money' was never disputed and ignoring

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat vs. Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat

ITA 163/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

Nareshkumar B. Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir - 4, Surat

ITA 136/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.No.136 & 163/Srt/2023

Section 147Section 250

St Josephs Educational and Charitable Trust, Kottayam vs. Incometax Officer(Exemption Ward) Kottayam, Kottayam

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

ITA 642/COCH/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Romid C.J., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148

receipt of interest income of Rs. 20,73,440/-. He also made addition on account of term deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- as unexplained investment of the assessee for failure of the assessee to offer explanation in support of the source of the above investment. 3. Being aggrieved

Hello Textiles, Navapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Dhule

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

ITA 1550/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1550/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hello Textiles, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Dhule. At Navapur, Taluka Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar- 425418 Pan : Aagfh1028P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Has Not Furnished Its Original Return Of Income For The Period Under Consideration. On The Basis Of Information Received On 28.03.2017 From The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (Inv.)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep RathiFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

determined total income of the assessee partnership firm at Rs.16,90,000/-. The above assessed income includes an addition of Rs.16,90,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1163/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

dated 28/03/2022 held the Ravinder Reddy Singidi vs. ITO entire amount of Rs.12,02,94,771/- (supra) as the assessee’s unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A). 4. We find that as the assessee despite having

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1162/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Ravinder Reddy Singidi, Vikarabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Vikarabad

In the result, all the three appeals, i

ITA 1161/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: making the additions to the appellant's income.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2562/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

found and admitted during the survey action u/s 133A, as income under the Profit and Gains from Business & profession instead of treating it as "Unexplained investments u/s 69B of the Act" and to tax at special rates given in section 115BBE of the Income ... that case, the question before the Coordinate Bench. was "whether the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has erred in directing the AO to assess the unexplained investment surrendered by the assessee under the head "income from Business" ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Mangaldeep Chains, Bengaluru

ITA 2561/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 69ASection 69B

Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad, Belapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5209/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad Commissioner Of 53, Royal Castle, Plot No. 75, Income-Tax (Appeals) Sector- 19/20 Palm Beach Commissioner Of Income Vs. Road, Belapur, Navi Mumbai Tax Appeal Mumbai 46, Pan: Adqpg0694P Ward 42(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai, Ito 42(3)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Cit(A)) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Admittedly In The Instant Case, The Ld. Commissioner In The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Whereby 3 Additions Of Rs. 51,14,040, Rs. 81,94,000/- & 1,44,998/- Were Respectively Made On Account Of Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act, Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Disallowance On 2 Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad Account Of Interest Income Without Seeking Exemption U/S 80Tt Of The Act, Issued Various Notices To The Assessee, However, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Same & Therefore In The Constrained Circumstance, The Ld. Commissioner Affirmed The Aforesaid Addition By Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 80T

whereby 3 additions of Rs. 51,14,040, Rs. 81,94,000/- and 1,44,998/- were respectively made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and disallowance on 2 Prakash Mahadev Gaikwad account of interest income without seeking

Ankita Chirag Jain, Andheri East Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23 1 6 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4874/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sarda

Section 144Section 250Section 69

treat the said amount of Rs.56,60,000/-, ld. AO completed the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s 144B after adding Rs.56,60,000/- u/s.69 as unexplained investment. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However no reply or documentary evidence was filed in response to the Page

Vaishali Umesh Naik, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3740/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Vaishali Umesh Naik Income-Tax Officer, 1052, Diwale Koliwada, Nr Ward 28(3)(1), Mumbai Darga Post, Kokan Bhavan, Vs. Income-Tax Office, Vashi Sector 14, Railway Station Building, Navi Mumbai- 400614 Navi Mumbai- 400703 Pan: Aeapn4619L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla Revenue By : Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Cit(A)) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, Agreement For Sale Of Property Under Consideration I.E. Flat No. 302, 3Rd Floor, Meridian Meadows, Navi Mumbai, Which Was Purchased On Total Consideration Of Rs. 85,00,000/- Showing Joint Ownership Of The Assessee & Her Husband, Was Registered With The Registration Authority On Dated 29.10.2015. The Assessing Officer (Ao) By Noticing The Facts & Examining The Bank Statement Of Assessee’S Husband Mr. Umesh

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Nakul Agrawal, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 148Section 250Section 69

proper decision case and substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the issue qua addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- being made as unexplained investment on account of assessee, to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification of the facts, such payments and to decide afresh the issue

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5984/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

response to 153A 4) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.6,86,625/- on account of Unexplained Investments in Mutha House only on the basis of DVO Report without appreciating that there was no search material found during the course of Search ... investment in Mutha House. 5) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not providing the telescoping benefit in respect of addition of unexplained investments in Mutha house when already the appellant had offered the additional income in the Revised Return filed u/s.153A declaring Gross Profit at the rate

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the years stands partly allowed

ITA 5983/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

Prakash H. Mutha, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1, Thane

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 5982/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 127Section 145(3)Section 153A

Creative Insolvency Resolution Professional Pvt Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-25(2), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2733/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2733/Del/2025 (A.Y 2016-17) M/S Creative Insolvency Resolution Vs Income Tax Officer Profession Private Limited (Formerly Ward 25(2), C. R. Tech Mech Arc Pvt. Ltd.) C/O Building, Ito, Ip Kashyap & Co. 114/214, Citi Estate, New Delhi Centre, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aadct85555D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)Section 194

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 1,58,75,000/- on account of unexplained investment. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30/12/2018, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/03/2025, dismissed the Appeal ... Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,58,75,000/- as unexplained investment in properties, ignoring the fact that the investment made in the property are duly accounted for and recorded in books of accounts

Shyam Lal Suthar, Jodhpur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 791/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Gehlot, Addl. CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19, whereby the addition of Rs.84,14,875/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment was confirmed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual resident of Jodhpur, filed his return of income

Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari, Bhatiya vs. Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner, Rajkot

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

ITA 420/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 420 /Rjt/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2020-21) Miteshkumar Dayaljibhai Pabari Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, International C/O Dayaljibhai Pabari, Shreeji Catlery Vs. Taxation Rajkot, Stores, Main Bajar, Bhatiya, Devbhoomi Dwarka, Room No. 312, Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Dwarka-361315(Gujarat) Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bctpp7290M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 274Section 69

assesse are as follows: (1) Learned A.O. erred in law as well facts in making addition of Rs. 78,69,694/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE and passing order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) ITA 420/RJT/2025 MITESHKUMAR PABARI of the Act and raised huge demand ... dated 25.02.2025 stating that as to why investment in purchase of immovable property including stamp duty and registration charges paid should not be considered unexplained investment. Page 3 of 12 ITA 420/RJT/2025 MITESHKUMAR PABARI 5. In response to the above show-cause notice, the assessee has furnished his reply vide