“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

The Anklav Mercantile Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Anand vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 685/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Preyashi Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 249(2)Section 68Section 69Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

erred in law and on facts not adjudicating addition made U/s 69 of the Act by Ld. A.O. of Rs.15,63,368/- as unexplained investment. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts not adjudicating addition made for interest income of Rs.33 ... income from other sources" since the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence for the same. Also, the AO found certain unexplained investments amounting to ₹15,63,368/- in Fixed Deposits held with SBI for which no satisfactory source or supporting documentation was provided, and Assessing Officer thereby made addition

Dilip Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 819/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dilip Roy,……………….……………...….………Appellant Sipaipara, Shahudangi Hat, Jalpaiguri-735135, West Bengal [Pan:Ainpr9363C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri, Central Revenue Building, Race Course Road, Jalpaiguri-735101, W.B.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

respect of unexplained money u/s 69A (cash deposit Rs.5,80,000/- and cash payment Rs.4,07,700/-), Rs.5,79,000/- in respect of unexplained investment under section 69, and Rs.20,06,562/- with respect to variation for unexplained credits under section 68]. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

Dilip Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 891/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2003 & 2004/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & In The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal “J(Smc)” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 891/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

erred in making additions under section 69A of Income Tax Act of Rs 10,50,000/- being 50% of the unexplained investment in the property without considering the fact that the Bank Statements submitted duly highlighting the payments made for purchase of the Property ... hands of the assessee. 9. Another connected issue raised in the appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the property u/s. 69A of the Act. Since, the investment has been made by the husband which has been considered is entirely

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 2004/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Prerna Pramod Kadam, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1), Lalbaug Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 2003/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Nitu Kumari Manish Kumar The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) Shreenath Bungalows Vs. Ahmedabad. Opp: Full Stop Society Motera, Chankheda Link Road Gujarat. Pan : Dvfpk 8773 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Nitin Pathak, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 69

return of income. The addition made under section 69 was unjustified as there was no material to suggest that the assessee had made any unexplained investment. The AR submitted that non-compliance before the CIT(A) was unintentional and occurred due to lack of proper guidance and technical inability ... limited issue for adjudication is whether the addition of Rs.45,00,000/- made under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in property purchased jointly with the assessee’s husband is justified in the facts of the case. 8. The purchase deed dated 02.01.2018 evidences that

Rangegowda Nakoppalu Murthy Siddappa, Koppalu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Advocate, Standing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

assessee had not responded to the notices and therefore the AO had treated the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The AO also estimated the business income and made the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. As against the said order

Nayan Real Estate Private Limited, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2330/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nayan Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward 7(3)(1) Shop 2, Ground Floor, Ivy Room No. 126J Building No. 2, Hubtown Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Gardenia Shantivan, Mira M.K. Road Road East, Maharashtra Mumbai-40 0020. 401 107. Pan : Aadcn7524J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Ved (Virtually)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 69B

erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 9,89,100/- made by the AO u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred

Income Tax Officer Ward-28(5), Delhi vs. Rajender, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3477/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajender, Ward 28(5), Room No. 1202, 448, Chauhan Mohalla, Block E, Civic Centre, Vs Madanpura Khadar, Sarita Delhi 110002 Vihar, Delhi - 110076 Pan- Avqpr9368B Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 30.04.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10229136 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 20.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

total income of INR 2,03,62,246/- by making following additions: 1. Unsecured loan of Rs. 1.00 crores given to Nitco Technology as unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Act and provision of section 115BBE of the Act are invoked; 2. Time deposit of Rs. 1,01,68,750/- with ... Punjab and Sindh Bank as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and provision of section 115BBE of the Act are invoked; 3. Interest received of Rs.1,93,496/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank taxed as income from other sources. 3. Against this order, assessee preferred an appeal before

Basant Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshbasant Jain, Vs. Dcit, C-119, Shivaji Park, Central Circle-29, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Adbpj2416P

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee are challenging the validity of addition made in the sum of Rs. 1.40 crores u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in property. Basant Jain 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is an individual ... Accordingly, the ld AO concluded that Rs. 2,41,50,000/- was paid by the assessee over and above the circle rate which constitutes unexplained investment made by the assessee and hence he had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment for the year under

Rameshwar Lal Vyas, Beawar, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Gupta CA, Ld. AR

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

upon such document for making addition. Since, the seized page is a dumb document, the entries contain therein are also cannot be termed as unexplained investment. Accordingly, in absence of investment, section 69 of the Act cannot be invoked. In the circumstances, we hold that ... submission of the assessee and added the difference between the value of valuation officer and book value in the income of the assessee as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) also dismissed the ground of the assessee and confirmed the addition made

Manjira Banerjee, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T Central Circle - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2387/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

further important to mention here that assessee has been requested to explain why Rs. 1,98,000/- should not be treated as unexplained investment and added to the total income. There is no denying to this fact that investment was made in FY 2009-10 and maturity amount come

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. M/S Mrk Gold LLP, Bangalore

ITA 1026/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

that case, the question before the Coordinate Bench. was "whether the CIT(A)-2, Udaipur has erred in directing the AO to assess the unexplained investment surrendered by the assessee under the head "income from Business" ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

unexplained income under section 69A. In addition, the assessee has also challenged the further addition of Rs.42,749/- under section 69, being the alleged unexplained investment towards commission paid at the rate of 50 paise per Rs.100 on the said transaction, treating the same also as part of the bogus

Harish Keshavlal Panchal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3305/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250

assessment order dated 20.12.2018 u/s 144 of the Act has made the additions of Rs.1,90,77,480/- & Rs.25,14,546/- on account of unexplained investment and difference between the purchase and sale value of shares, respectively. 2 Mr. Harish Keshavlal Panchal 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said

Income Tax Officer-42(2)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Kaushik Balubhai Madhwani, Girgaon, Mumbai

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

ITA 2861/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri RiteshMisra, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

case and in law, LdCIT(A) is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 30.31. 974 made by the A.0 on account of unexplained investment made in penny stock company M/s. Sunrise Asian Lid and commission paid? Date: 14.08.2023 . 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case

Anshuka Taneja, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 68Section 69Section 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

Saroj, Korea vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur - 1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.379/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Saroj W/O. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Pondi Bachra, Korea-497 449 (C.G.) Pan: Etzps9075K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(2)(c)Section 69

Dinesh Oils Ltd, Kanpur vs. DCIT. CC-1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)

Rs.4,73,53,410/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition I.T.A. No.254/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2014-15 2 of Rs.48,62,688/- on account of unexplained investment. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution