RAJESH KUMAR JALAN,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 69 was incorrect. The payment for the property was made through cheques from the assessee's bank accounts, details of which were provided to the AO and clearly indicated the source of funds.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased an immovable property for ₹41,21,145/-. The AO added this amount as unexplained investment under section 69, contending the assessee failed to provide sources. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, dismissing the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO for the purchase of an immovable property as unexplained investment under section 69 is justified when the source of funds is traceable through bank accounts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 44AD,Section 56(2)(vii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 02.08.2024 for the AY 2015-16.
The only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹41,21,145/- made by the ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act.
The facts in brief are that the assessee field the return of income on 28th August, 2015, declaring total income of ₹3,41,700/-, after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA of ₹1,11,708/-. Thereafter the AO received information from Bureau of Investigation, Commercial
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition in respect of shortfall of profit, however, the addition u/s 69 of the Act of ₹49,21,145/- was confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) by observing and holding as under:
“9. Decision on unexplained investment of Rs. 41,21,145/- 9.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the appellant purchased one immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 41,21,145/- and that was registered on 04.07.2014. The AO has called for the sources of investment. As the appellant failed to furnish any reply, the entire sum was treated as unexplained investment. The appellant raised specific ground in ground no. 13 against this addition. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant filed only cryptic reply as under:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2025.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
