← 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

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shujole, DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road Ahmedabad vs. Gsg Abode LLP, Navrangpura Ahmedabad

ITA 665/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Sl. No(S) आयकर अपील सं / It(Ss)A/Ita No(S)/Co No. निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assess- Ment Year(S) अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम/Vs. 2019-20 1. It(Ss)A No. 21/Ahd/2024 Dcit Central Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad - 380 009 Gsg Abode Llp 1001, 10Th Floor Safal Profitaire, Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 2. Co No. 32/Ahd/2024 (In Itss)A No.21/Ahd/2024) 2019-20 (Revenue) Gsg Abode Llp 1001, 10Th Floor Safal Profitaire, Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad - 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) Dcit Central Circle- 1(2) Ahmedabad - 380 009 3.

Section 153CSection 69B

facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act of Rs. 5,37,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immoveable ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shejole, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road vs. Hitendrakumar Bhailalbhai Patel, Navjivan Post Naranpura

ITA 664/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act of Rs. 5,37,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immoveable ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property

Dr. Shruti Ramrao Shejole, Aashram Road vs. Harshadkumar Kantilal Savaliya, Iscon Temple Ahmedabad

ITA 663/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act of Rs. 5,37,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immoveable ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad, Aaykar Bhawan Ashram Road Ahmedabad vs. Kantibhai Tapubhai Savalia, Scon Tample Ahmedabad

ITA 662/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) / Co By : It(Ss)A/Ita Assess- No(S) अपीलाथ' / !(थ' / No(S) /Co No. Ment Appellant बनाम/Vs. Respondent Year(S) 1. It(Ss)A No. 2019-20 Dcit Central Gsg Abode Llp 21/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) 1001, 10Th Floor Ahmedabad – 380 Safal Profitaire, 009 Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) (Revenue) 2. Co No. 2019-20 Gsg Abode Llp Dcit Central Circle- 32/Ahd/2024 1001, 10Th Floor 1(2) (In Itss)A Safal Profitaire, Ahmedabad – 380 009 No.21/Ahd/2024) Corporate Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 006 Pan:Aatfg 0941 R (Assessee) 3. Ita 2020-21 Dcit Central Csg Abode Llp 665/Ahd/2024 Circle-1(2) Ahmedabad-380 006 Ahmedabad- -380 009 4. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Hitendrakumar 19/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad- Bhailalbhai Patel -380 009 4A Bhailalbhai Bhavan 4A Ketan Society Nr.Sardar Patel Colony Navjivan Post Naranpura-380 014 Pan: Afupp 4221 K 5. It(Ss)A 2019-20 Dcit, Cen.Cir-1(2) Janki Dharmik Patel 20/Ahd/2024 Ahmedabad Ahmeeabad-380 009 Pan: Anjpp 8960 E

Section 153CSection 69B

facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act of Rs. 5,37,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immoveable ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act of Rs. 19,63,00,000/-, without considering the incriminating digital evidence suggested cash involvement in the transaction of immovable property

Safali Mahendrakumar Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Anand

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

ITA 488/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsafali Mahendrakumar Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ishwar Smruti, B/H. Gunatit Jyot Ward 4, Na, Shree Ram Vihar, Vallabh Anand Vidyanagar, Anand, Vv Nagar, Gujarat-388120 [Pan :Bohpp 5776 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds : “1. The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act Dated 16.12.2019 Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed & Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Same As Valid.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69

satisfactorily explain the source of this investment, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,19,000/- under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made by the assessee. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the matter ex-parte

Nidhika Rehani, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2236/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mrs. Nidhika Rehani, Vs Acit, G-7, Sector-6, Gautam Budh Circle-5(2)(2), Nagar, Noida, U.P.-201301. G.B.Nagar, Noida Pan-Arjpg8733C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv., Ms. Mansi Jain, Ca & Ms. Shakshi Rustagi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeal) Ghaziabad/10645/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & E- Filed Her Return Of Income On 31.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 32,08,530/-.The Assessee Is Engaged In The Manufacturing & Trading Of Readymade Garments & Is Sole Proprietor Of M/S. Dsyngreen. Based On The Information Available On Record That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits In The Bank Accounts During Demonetization In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn), Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. After Considering The Submissions Made, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) At A Total Income Of Inr 2,03,49,108/- By Making Following Additions/Disallowances:-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Lakhs; (ii) Payment of INR 56 Lakhs to Vani Designs as undisclosed; (iii) Payment of purchase of INR 52,07,920/- as unexplained investment u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; and (iv) Purchase of INR 35,32,658/- as bogus. 3. Against the said order, assessee preferred appeal before ... under section 69 of the Act, being the increase of capital amount in the proprietary concern of the appellant as unexplained investment. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action