Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment order and lower appellate findings which added Rs.16.50 lakhs as unexplained investment under section 69. The impugned sum was received via banking channel from the assessee's trustee, whose genuineness is not in dispute.
Held
The Tribunal held that the learned lower authorities' action in making the impugned addition as unexplained investment in the assessee's hand would not be upheld, as the source of funds was established through banking channels from a trustee whose creditworthiness was not disputed.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs.16.50 lakhs as unexplained investment is justified when the funds were received from the trustee through banking channels.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2023-24, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081695519(1), dated 13.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings adding an amount of Rs.16.50 lakhs as unexplained investment under section 69; in assessment order dated 10.03.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, it is noticed from the perusal of the case record that impugned sum has indeed come by banking channel from the assessee’s trustee Mr. Arun Gemini, whose genuineness & creditworthiness, as the case may be, are not in dispute. Faced with the situation, it is hereby concluded that both the learned lower authorities’ action in making the impugned addition as unexplained investment in assessee’s hand would not be upheld. Deleted accordingly.
The assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January, 2026.