“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

Shalimar Corp Ltd., Lucknow vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2767/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., A 2/3, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-30, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2764 To 2768/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., 11Th Floor, Shalimar Titanium, Central Circle-30, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, New Delhi Lucknow Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.2502/Del/2023; 2853 & 2854/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 Vs. M/S. Shalimar Corp Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-30, 308, Tulsiani Chamber, New Delhi Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aadcs9234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 285

special auditor’s report followed by its assessment @ 20%. We further reiterate our directions of assessment of these impugned unsecured loans and unexplained investments as derived from its on-money component and liable to be assessed @ 20% once forming a part of the business turnover in addition to the special

Ramhet Singh, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1) Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69

order also reveals that the same has been passed u/s. 144 and the addition of Rs.13,15,340/- has been made on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land u/s. 69 of the Act. In the circumstances, keeping in view that both the orders of authorities below are passed

Nisha Nanwani, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Nanwani Shail Villa, Flat No.502, Block-C, Maruti Life Style, Kota-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Atepn5440L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Warlywani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 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, whereas the assessee has not made any investment either in movable or any immovable property during the relevant period by way of using cash ... noted that the AO had made addition u/s.69 of the Act which refers to 7 Nisha Nanwani Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) 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

Dalgir Kaur, Ghagga vs. ITO Ward Samana, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 131/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dalgir Kaur, बनाम The Ito, W/O Shri Sadhu Singh, Ward Samana, Vs Atala Road, Ward No.5, Patiala. Vpo – Ghagga. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Ddwpk1857D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate & Shri Armaan Cajla, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate and Shri Armaan Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 282Section 69A

given credit of withdrawals made by the assessee in the past and ultimately made addition of Rs.18,90,600/- on account of unexplained investment made in the bank account. Thus, this addition is being made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act. 4. Appeal to the ld.CIT (Appeals

Miteshkumar Dhanjibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5) Previous Ward-3(3)(14), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 243/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

property purchased during the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Act in respect of unexplained investment in the property. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 18.12.2018 at a total income

Kurri Narasimha Rao, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kothagudem

ITA 131/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

absence of any explanation forthcoming regarding the source of cash deposits of Rs. 1,15,57,500/-, treated the same as his unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. As such, the 4 Kurri Narasimha Rao A.O. vide his order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B ... there was no justification for the A.O. to have drawn any adverse inference, much less held the subject cash deposits, as the assessee's unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 12. Per contra, Ms. P. Sumitha, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) relied upon

DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 43ASection 68Section 69C

paid. The ld. AO noted that the said loan was not explained by the assessee and therefore, treated the same as unexplained investment u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. AO also issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the lenders namely; Akansha Advisory Services Private Limited, Everlight

Ricky Nakhat, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 32(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2482/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

details whereof is given at page no.2 and 3 of the assessment order,should be added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment, which was replied by the assessee and finally entire amount of cash deposits was treated as unexplained investment ... also been accepted and books were not rejected by either of the authorities below. Thereafter the Id. AO has added ₹69,57,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act to the total income of the assessee which in our opinion has resulted in doble taxation of the same

Mahendra Bellavi Narendra, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 82/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Satish, CAFor Respondent: (young professional) on behalf of Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148A(1)(b)Section 148A(1)(d)Section 69

claim, the assessee had not submitted any documents and therefore the AO had not accepted the said claim and assessed the entire value as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act. Insofar as the interest income received from the banks, the AO had treated the said income as income from

Rajaram Purushottama Hegde, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 80/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subramanya Bhat

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

also issued. The Page 2 of 4 assessee had not responded to the said notices. The AO had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act and also treated the interest received on deposits as income from other sources. As against the said order

Prasad Narayan Dhulap, Kamothe Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4120/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4120/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year :2011-12) Prasad Narayan Dhulap V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward Flat No. A/801, Satyam बिधम 27(2)(1), Mumbai Arcade Plot No. 26 Sector It Office, Vashi Railway 21 Kamothe, Panvel Station Building, Navi 410209 Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Axtpd5548C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Anuradha K. Jethi रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anuradha K. JethiFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (SR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

issued by Ld. AO, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147, after adding Rs. 31,41,900/- u/s. 69A of the Act, being unexplained investment in the immovable property. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As no compliance

Nimish Medical Corporation, Vasai vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3578/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Assessment Year 2010-2011 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s.69B as unexplained investment for unsecured loan taken from M/s.Kriya Impex Pvt. Ltd. alleging it being bogus based on information received from DGIT (Inv) – Mumbai alone. The Appellant therefore prays ... that the addition of Rs.25,00,000/- on account unexplained investment u/s.69B being unwarranted, illegal, bad-in-law be deleted .” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a firm engaged in the business of wholesale trading in Drugs and Medicines, filed return of income for the Assessment

Ms. Mita Bimol Kristo Mittra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3536/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ms. Mita Bimol Kristo Mittra, The Ito Ward 23(2)(3), 501, 84, Dheeraj Arcade, Pali Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Matru Vs. Naka, Bandra West, Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400050. Mumbai-400 007. Pan No. Ahapm 5920 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 144

confirmed by the CIT(A) may be deleted. confirmed by the CIT(A) may be deleted. D) Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment D) Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment D) Addition on account of alleged unexplained investment ... confirming the addition made addition made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained by the AO on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s. 69 of Rs. 8,98,056/ investment u/s. 69 of Rs. 8,98,056/-. 12) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the maturity

Smt Shrishti Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 3163/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shrishti Gupta, Ito34(3)(5) 301, Swati Building, North Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Avenue Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Alapd 2228 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 144Section 147Section 69

erred in wrongly confirming sale of 4) The Ld CIT(A) erred in wrongly confirming sale of shares as shares as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. PRAYERS. 1) Delay in filing of appeal be condoned. 1) Delay in filing of appeal

Zakir Abdulkarim Naik, Mumbai vs. AO, Income Atx

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed

ITA 4783/MUM/2023[2011-2]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR a/w

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

Abdulkarim Naik (batch appeals) Rs. 1,43,64,560/-wherein the AO brought to tax unexplained deposits in the bank accounts u/s 68 and unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act. It was submitted that similar fact exists for other assessment years wherein the notices u/s 148 were served ... assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein the AO brought to tax unexplained deposits, unexplained foreign remittances and unexplained investments and the assessed income was determined at Rs. 2,49,99,730/- for AY. 2011-12 vide order