“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

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

credit entries in unallocated Gold/Silver account of STCH - Rs.589,63,46,541/-. (v). Cash/Premium payment reflected in STCSH account - Rs.2,40,77,958/-. (vi). Unexplained Investment in Properties and Rent thereof as per KYC documents of Undisclosed Foreign Bank Account Rs.5,93,51,875/- (Rs.5,82,72,750/- + Rs.10

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada vs. The Chintalapadu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Chintalapadu Village

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 153/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.153/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Income Tax Officer Vs. The Chintalapadu Ward-1(1) Primary Agricultural Vijayawada Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Chintalapadu Village Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7617B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.17/Viz/2025 Arising Out Of Ita No.153/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Chintalapadu Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1) Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vijayawada Society Ltd. Chintalapadu Village Krishna Dist. [Pan : Aacat7617B] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar (Through Hybrid Hearing) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Aparna Villuri, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/04/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/04/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 80P

relevant additions made by the AO are as under : i. Unexplained Sundry Rs.1,18,967/- Creditors ii. Unexplained other liabilities Rs.2,96,262/- iii. Unexplained investments Rs.50,49,141/- iv. Unexplained loans and Rs.44,63,731/- advances to members v. Unexplained deduction u/s Rs.74

Joice Mary Philip, Kaviyoor vs. DCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 240/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Joice Mary Philip .......... Appellant Padijarethil, Kaviyoor, Pathanamthitta 689582 [Pan: Cfepp1777A] Vs. Dcit, Internatonal Taxation .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram

For Appellant: Shri Samuel Thomas, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

vide order dated 11.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144(C)(13) of the Act proposing to make addition of Rs. 3,19,380/- as unexplained investment made on purchase of property. After receipt of the draft assessment order, the appellant filed objection, before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The fate

Prakash Dhudalal Sanghvi, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1) Previously Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 90/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)Section 68

Appeal) is grossly wrong in treating loans and advances of Rs.34,38,955/- as undisclosed investment u/s.69A and unexplained investment and adding back to the total income as no opportunity of being heard is provided. 7. Shri Biren Shah, Ld. AR or the assessee explained that the assessee is operating

Bhavna Satish Mori, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 31/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessee. The assessee failed to make any reply to the notices thereby the unsecured loans amount of Rs.36,75,000/- is added as the unexplained investment of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved Against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However ... NFAC[CIT(A)], Delhi. (for short CIT(A)" upholding the addition of Rs.36,75,000/-towards unsecured loan from Shri Satish Mori as unexplained investment made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiyan Shaikh, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1889/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR and Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 59,08,859/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained investment in stock ignoring the seized documents and statement recorded during search/post- search proceedings. ITA No.1888 & 1889/Ahd/2024 DCIT vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiya Shaikh Page ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,07,050/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained investment in stock ignoring the seized documents and statement recorded during search/post-search proceedings. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Mustufamiya Hussenmiyan Shaikh, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1888/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, AR and Shri Alay Anil Kshatriya, AR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69

Saumil Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 951/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in confirming of alleged difference in closing stock as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 7. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant

Mohammed Mannan Abdul, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.60,30,500/- by making addition of Rs.59,22,000/- u/sec.69 of the Act as unexplained investment for purchase of property. 3. The case has been subsequently taken-up for revision proceedings by the PCIT, Hyderabad-1 and 3 ITA.No.249/Hyd./2024 ... available with him. Since the Assessing Officer has not considered the second sale deed for the purpose of taxation and also bring to tax unexplained investment of Rs.19 lakhs, the PCIT observed that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act is erroneous

Paneerselvam Subramaniam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 612/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Guruprasad, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 249(4)

parte order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act has assessed income at Rs.52,50,000/- by making addition on account of unexplained investment in the said property as the assessee has not responded to the notices issued. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee filed an appeal before

M/S.Thiru Kumaarh Hardwares, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 589/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.589/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Thiru Kumaarh Hardwares, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1A, Anjugambal Street, 100 Feet Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(6), Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Tatamani, Chennai. Chennai 600 013. [Pan:Aaeft8378E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 424 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Along With Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination

For Appellant: Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) and the addition involved therein is under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained investments. As there is no assistance from the assessee, taking into account the undertaking given by the ld. AR that the assessee is ready

Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.582/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 669/2, Kuttuputhur Main Road, Ward 2, Mohanur Oruvandur Post, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Dwbps4361A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

IMFS and beer to the customers and accepted demonetized currency in return is to be assessed u/s.69 of the Act or not as unexplained investment. The ld. Senior DR has raised a question on this that when there was an express bar by Government on transacting business from ... Revenue to make addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned

Srinivasan Varatharaj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 579/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.579/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srinivasan Varatharaj, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 11, Kandan Street, Perambur S.O., Income Tax, Perambur, Chennai 600 011. Non Corporate Ward 10(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Avjps1866L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sricharan, Ca & : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 27 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We

For Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 194ISection 69

conclusive documentary evidence for the source of fund for purchase of immovable property against specific statutory notices, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution

Arumugam Sivasankaran, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddaore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

Sri Kannan Damodaran, L/R of S. Damodaran, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 3258/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.3257 & 3258/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate) –

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

expenses noted in the loose sheets which had not brought any investment as such and therefore the addition of Rs.1,30,50,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act made by the assessing officer is not correct and liable to be deleted. 12. The appellant submits that ... stamp duty and registration charges of Rs. 102,970 which was paid by cheque as per sale deed and there was no unexplained investment at all in this year. The assessing officer is therefore not justified in adding Rs.1,30,50,000 as unexplained investment in the appellant's case

Sri Kannan Damodaran, L/R. of S. Damodaran, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 3257/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate) –

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

Shri. Sannappa Ramappa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Davangere

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

ITA 50/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

hold ownership. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Assessing Officer erred in treating the future payments specified in the Agreement to Sell as unexplained investments. The learned NFAC further erred in upholding this addition without XII conducting a proper verification of the facts on record. The future payments ... merely contingent liabilities under the Agreement to Sell and do not constitute unexplained investments, as incorrectly concluded by the authorities. Page 5 of 8 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, XIII substitute, and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above. Total tax effect

M/S. Global Star Indmetal Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 52/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 147

impugned order of Tribunal deleting addition was to be confirmed. Where Assessing Officer in course of block assessment proceedings made addition in respect of unexplained investment relating to purchase of property, in absence of any incriminating evidence with respect to payment over and above reported amount, addition so made deserved

M/S. Global Star Indmetal Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 51/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 147