← 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

Subashini Sood, South Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4077/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Subashini Sood, Vs. Dcit, New Delhi C-251, 6Th Floor, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024 (Pan: Ajsp8300A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Agni Choudhary, Adv. & Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca (Thru Vc) & Sh. Rahul Agarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2 Noida Dated 05.10.2024 On The Solitary Ground Relating To Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 11,47,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Act By Treating The Cash Deposit As Unexplained Investment. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income On 23.10.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,72,210/-. During The Course Of Scrutiny Assessment, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs. 11,47,000/- In Her Bank Account During The Demonetization Period, Specifically Between

For Appellant: Ms. Agni Choudhary, Adv. & Sh. RaghavFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 69A

sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,47,000/- made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the cash deposit as unexplained investment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed her return of income on 23.10.2017, declaring a total income

ITO, Delhi vs. Usha Rani, Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 2286/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Vs Usha Rani, Ward-44(1), 593, Rani Bagh, Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Ahrpc1449F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeal No.Nfac/2015-16/10332913 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 08.03.2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-44(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That The Case Of The Revenue Is That The Assessee Has Been Erroneously Benefitted By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Source Of The Source Of Her Husband’S Agricultural Activities Has Not Been Examined. We Find That The Revenue Has Also Raised A Ground That Additional Evidences Were Accepted Without Giving The Ao An Opportunity To Contest.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

evidences requisitioned, the assessment was completed u/s 147 rws 144 of the Act after making addition of Rs.1,10,25,000/-. In respect of unexplained investment u/s.69 and added to the total income of the assesseeand initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income ... Hence, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7.3 Ground nos. 3 & 4 are against the addition of Rs.1,10,25,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. It is seen from the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant had submitted copy of her bank