RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

ITA 16/ALLD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.20 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding the source of investment was not satisfactory as it lacked details on how and when the income was earned. The conduct of the assessee over two years indicated an intention to conceal, justifying the addition under Section 69 and tax under Section 115BBE.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee declared an undisclosed investment of Rs. 1.85 crores in property. Despite paying tax later, the investment was not recorded in books or the return. The AO treated this as unexplained investment under Section 69 and taxed it under Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1.85 crores as unexplained investment under Section 69 was justified, and whether the rental income was correctly treated as business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 69B,Section 68,Section 24(a),Section 133A,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Hearing: 11.02.2025Pronounced: 02.05.2025

PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 12.12.2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 partly allowing the appeal of the assessee against the assessment done by the DCIT, Central Circle Allahabad on 25.06.2021. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1.

Because the learned CIT (A) was not legally justified in affirming the order of the assessing authority, regarding the invocation of section 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961, as all the necessary ingredients for invocation of section 69 were not present in the case of the assessee/ appellant.

2.

Because le

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →