“unexplained investment”

Ankita Agarwal, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.499/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ankita Agarwal………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant Near Kali Mandir, Harharguttu, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831002. [Pan: Atkpa9502A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 28.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 125 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Rs.22,00,000/- had neither been explained nor disclosed by the assessee in her ITR, therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee by assessing total income of Rs.24

Pawan Agarwal, Shillong vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

justified in arbitrarily treating additional business income of Rs. 54,72,788/- on account of difference in valuation of business stock as unexplained investment in stock within the meaning of section 69 of the Act and consequent By, charging the same to tax under section 115BBE ... that the assessee had no explanation to offer in this regard and a sum of ₹54,72,788/- was added as unexplained investment in stock within the meaning of section 69 of the Act and charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3.1 Aggrieved with the assessment order

Sukhdev Singh Joshi, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Jagdalpur

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 173 & 174/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities was given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Sukhdev Singh Joshi, Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Jagdalpur

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 173 & 174/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities was given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Anjali Devrao Sonar, Achalpur vs. I.T.O., Ward 4, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

same from the total amount of ₹ 9 lakh/–, ultimately made the addition of ₹ 5,51,230/– under section 69 of the Act being unexplained investment and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. The Assessee at this stage, before us by producing relevant ... bank account during the relevant period and, therefore, the amount of ₹ 5,51,230/– as deposited by the assessee which has been treated as unexplained investment, is unsustainable “, seems to be plausible. 4. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, at Mumbai in Ms. Lena Purshotam Patel Vs Income

Burre Sreenivasa Madhuri, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

confirm the Rs. 10,00,000/- gift. Thus, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making addition of Rs.11,76,100/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but the assessee even after receipt ... justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,76,100/- made by the assessing officer under section 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment in immovable property. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.” 5. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR