← 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

DCIT Circle511, Mumbai vs. Hatim Glazing and Cladding Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

this account would not only be unwarranted under section 69C but would equally fail the test of section 69A, since there is no unexplained investment or asset outside the books. Accordingly, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned addition. The Revenue’s appeal

Bhargavi Sajja, Telangana vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(1), Telangana

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 773/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 156Section 274

initiated, and assessment was completed by making addition of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs for assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which ... Assessing Officer u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.02.2024 by making an addition of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act for AY 2019-20. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant filed the present appeal before

The Thanjavur Public Servants Co-Op Bankltd, Thanjavur vs. Assessing Officer Circle 2(1) Trichy, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/CHNY/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1445/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr.Alagappan, C.A(Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

Ld.AO on 22.03.2024 making additions of Rs.2.71 Crores u/s 69A on account of unexplained money, Rs.3.49 Crores app. u/s 69 on account of unexplained investments and Rs.2,70,000/- on account of unaccounted rental receipts in the case of the assessee. The controversy primarily involved availability of two separate

Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-391), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the for A

ITA 1067/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1067/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Paul Dhinakaran, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 020. V. Central Circle 3(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabpd8489M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

also treated the value of Jewellery seized of 7,942.09 grams i.e. Rs.3,69,38,660/- (7,942.09 grams. x Rs. 4,651) as ‘unexplained investment’, by stating that the explanation of the assessee lacks proper documentary evidence. The AO has disregarded the submissions of invoices made by the Assessee ... Jewellery: The AO in completing the assessment had valued the seized jewelley of 7942.09 grams at Rs.3,69,38,660 and added it as Unexplained Investment U/s.69A of the Act. The appellant lives in a joint family consisting of himself, his mother, wife, a son, daughter

M/S. United Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO. Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 564/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P ShahFor Respondent: 09.07.2025
Section 148Section 250Section 68B

completed by making the alleged addition of Rs. 4,95,78,590/- as unrecorded transactions 3) ADDITION OF RS. 4,95,78,590 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT US, 698- (3.1) On the facts and circumstances and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the alleged addition of Rs.4

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar Ramswaroop Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2730/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

present context. 56.1. The nature and character of the transactions, as borne out from the records, relate to unaccounted business receipts and not to unexplained investments or assets of the kind contemplated under section 69A. Consequently, such income falls within the regular charging provisions and is liable to be taxed

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar Ramswaroop Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 2728/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITA 2683/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2682/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

present context. 56.1. The nature and character of the transactions, as borne out from the records, relate to unaccounted business receipts and not to unexplained investments or assets of the kind contemplated under section 69A. Consequently, such income falls within the regular charging provisions and is liable to be taxed

Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2162/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

present context. 56.1. The nature and character of the transactions, as borne out from the records, relate to unaccounted business receipts and not to unexplained investments or assets of the kind contemplated under section 69A. Consequently, such income falls within the regular charging provisions and is liable to be taxed

Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2161/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

present context. 56.1. The nature and character of the transactions, as borne out from the records, relate to unaccounted business receipts and not to unexplained investments or assets of the kind contemplated under section 69A. Consequently, such income falls within the regular charging provisions and is liable to be taxed

DCIT, Central Circle - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

present context. 56.1. The nature and character of the transactions, as borne out from the records, relate to unaccounted business receipts and not to unexplained investments or assets of the kind contemplated under section 69A. Consequently, such income falls within the regular charging provisions and is liable to be taxed

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1689/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

present context. 56.1. The nature and character of the transactions, as borne out from the records, relate to unaccounted business receipts and not to unexplained investments or assets of the kind contemplated under section 69A. Consequently, such income falls within the regular charging provisions and is liable to be taxed

Madam Gopal Agarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Madan Gopal Agarwal, Vs. Ito, 159, Bank Enclave, Laxmi Ward-1(4), Nagar, Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agzpa3971D

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

contentions of the assessee and proceeded to treat the cash deposit made in the bank account in the sum of ₹92,45,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment. This action was upheld

DCIT Exemption, Ghaziabad vs. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2839/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

appellate order on the following grounds: “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of unexplained investment of Rs.3,33,53,024/- u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow in the assessee’s own case for previous years where the additions made on account of unexplained investment in construction were deleted for the reason that the books of accounts were not rejected before making reference to the DVO. It is further

DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6248/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

appellate order on the following grounds: “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of unexplained investment of Rs.3,33,53,024/- u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow in the assessee’s own case for previous years where the additions made on account of unexplained investment in construction were deleted for the reason that the books of accounts were not rejected before making reference to the DVO. It is further

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

appellate order on the following grounds: “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in allowing the appeal of unexplained investment of Rs.3,33,53,024/- u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 2. The Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow in the assessee’s own case for previous years where the additions made on account of unexplained investment in construction were deleted for the reason that the books of accounts were not rejected before making reference to the DVO. It is further

Sh. Sukhbir Singh Badal, Muktsar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 411/ASR/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 411/Asr/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Shri Sukhbir Singh Badal Dcit-Circle-Ii बनाम/ Vs. S/O Parkash Singh Badal Bhatinda. Vpo Badal, District Muktsar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abspb-1568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal Ms. Muskan Garg (Cas) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)Section 69

which may have escaped mentioning in the return. Since the wealth was voluntarily enhanced by Rs.48,000/-, Ld. AO held the same to be unexplained investment. However, there was no such investment during the year and the same did not appear in the cash flow statement of the assessee. However

Sandeep Singh, Juna Lakhanpur vs. ITO Ambikapur, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Singh Juna Lakhanpur, Lakhanpur, Surguja-497 116 (C.G.) Ambikapur Pan: Gesps5929Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 69A

assessee by way of self speaking documentary evidence and explanation. Secondly, the AO has made addition u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investments, 5 Sandeep Singh Vs. ITO, Ambikapur (C.G.) whereas the assessee has not made any investment either in movable or any immovable property during ... follows: “5. At the outset, on this issue, it is noted that the AO had made addition u/s.69 of the Act which refers to unexplained investment. However, in this case, the assessee had neither purchased nor sold any moveable or immoveable property, nor had invested in any such property

Swastik Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 955/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-2018 Swastik Developers The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5), 21, Swastik House Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H.Sardar Patel Stadium Ahmedabad. Pan : Acyfs 0641 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Prashant Shrivastav, Ar Assessee By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69

income at Rs.4,28,64,954/-, comprising the following additions: i. Addition of Rs.2,91,23,300/- under section 69 of the Act, being unexplained investment in the purchase of immovable property; and ii. Addition of Rs.1,37,40,714/- under section 68 of the Act, being unexplained cash credits ... source of investment stood fully explained. 5.1 The learned Authorised Representative (AR) further contended that the addition made under section 69A on account of unexplained investment is wholly unjustified, inasmuch as the source of funds utilised for the land acquisition stood explained by way of capital contribution from the partners