← 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

Prince Tygai, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 968/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.968/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prince Tyagi Ito # 87 Ward No 1, Near Petrol Pump Ward-6(4) बनाम/ Vs. Mandi Kharar Sas Nagar, Mohali 140301 Chandigarh 160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Angpt-5979-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Bhanot( Advocate) & Shri Puneet Singla (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 05-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgement Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 19-12-2019. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 40 Days In The Appeal

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bhanot( Advocate) and Shri PuneetFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr.DR
Section 144

para 6.9). On these facts, Ld. CIT(A) estimated profit rate of 5% on turnover of Rs.197.43 Lacs. To account for other transactions / unexplained investment, Ld. CIT(A) directed Ld. AO to estimate overall business income of Rs.18 Lacs subject to grant of credit of returned income of Rs.3.86 Lacs ... that the assessee is not fully able to substantiate the quantum of business income. However, Ld. AR has tabulated source of each of the unexplained investment aggregating to Rs.15.75 Lacs in the paper-book. Upon perusal of the same, it could be seen that the entries of Rs.9 Lacs, Rs.2.85