← 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

Chinnasaminaidu Chandrasekar, Hosur vs. Income Tax Department, Hosur

ITA 3119/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3119/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Chinnasaminaidu Chandrasekar, 3-591, Athimugam, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 105. [Pan:Bwrpc-0650-C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward -1, Hosur. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri. L. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3119/Chny/2024 : 26.06.2025 : 23.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.10.2024 Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, (Ld.Cit(A)) In Relation To

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 156Section 250

issued u/s.142(1) and 143(2) and the assessee has complied with the notices. The AO made an addition of Rs.87,88,333/- as unexplained investment and determined Income of Rs.90,18,333/- and raised demand of Rs.74,31,070/- u/s.156 of the Act dated 23/03/2023. - 2 - ITA No.3119/CHNY/2024 ... neither submitted the original return nor he done the property transaction through his bank accounť". Accordingly made addition of Rs.87,88,333/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act by passing an order u/s.147 of the Act dated 23.03.2023. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred

Rakesh Malhotra, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 392/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 391 & 392/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rakesh Malhotra, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward-2(1), Advocate, Chandigarh Vs. 527, Sector 10, Chandigarh 160011 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aavpm7247C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 69

absence of proper explanation and supporting documents, the cash payment of Rs.1,25,200/- was added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Υ.2017-18. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal against the said assessment order

Rakesh Malhotra, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 391/CHANDI/2025[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 391 & 392/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rakesh Malhotra, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward-2(1), Advocate, Chandigarh Vs. 527, Sector 10, Chandigarh 160011 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aavpm7247C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 69

absence of proper explanation and supporting documents, the cash payment of Rs.1,25,200/- was added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Υ.2017-18. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal against the said assessment order

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

passed the final assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, vide order dt. 30-12- 2024; wherein the unexplained investment of Rs 4,47,74,410/- was brought to tax on protective basis u/s. 69 of the Act and income from other sources