← 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

Aashiyana Infrastructure Development Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 8472/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8472/ िद"ी /2019 (िन.व. 2008-09) Aashiyana Infrastructure Development P. Ltd., 22/2B Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aafca-2236-A बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), R.No 366, Dr. S.P Mukherjee, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, S/Shri Shivam Yadav & Tarun Chanana, Advocates Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.08.2019, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2008-09 Declaring Loss Of Rs.10,97,461/-. The Return Of Income Was Accepted U/S. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, A Survey Operation Was Carried Out In The Case Of Shreeji Group Of Cases, The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies. During

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 10,00,000 Total 80,00,000/- 3. The AO made addition of Rs.80,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of investment made from undisclosed sources. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15.03.2016 passed

Hakam Singh, Sangrur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Sangrur, Sangrur

ITA 1130/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1130/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Hakam Singh, The Ito, बनाम C/O Tej Mohan Singh, Ward - Sangrur Advocate, Vs. #527, Sector 10D,Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bdwps5185E 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 : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03 07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in in upholding of the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- for alleged unexplained investment in purchase of alleged units of Mutual Fund of ‘Computer Age Management Service Limited' when no such investment was made by the assessee duly explained ... retirement benefits because of his services rendered in the Indian Army. The Assessing Officer also made entire addition of Rs. 14 lacs from alleged unexplained investment in purchase of alleged units of mutual funds of Computer Age Management Service Limited (‘CAMS’) while the Assessee has denied having made any such