“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

Amar Singh Rathore Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 24/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 24/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Amar Singh Rathore Shikshan Samiti, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Netaji Chowk, Katora Talab, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur 492001 (C.G.) Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aacta3313N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

case, the honorable CIT(A) has been erred for confirming the order of learned assessing officer in treating Rs.1,61,30,573/- as unexplained investment u/'s 69 and adding to the total income of the appellant. 6. That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the honorable ... Vide ground no 1 to 3 of appeal, the Ld. AO, in the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in treating Rs.16130573/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 and adding to the total income of the appellant. The Ld. AO, in the facts and circumstances of the case, erred

Tirumala Rao Battu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 312/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69

also erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,39,350/-u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 towards alleged unexplained investment, ignoring the explanations furnished by the assessee. 5. The authorities below have failed to discharge the onus cast upon the department to prove that the amounts in question ... after making two additions viz., (i) addition of unexplained cash deposits in savings Bank account 52048970705: Rs.13,00,800/-; and (ii) addition towards unexplained investment towards purchase of property: Rs.9,39,350/-. Page. No 2 I.T.A.No.312/VIZ/2025 Tirumala Rao Battu 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Sehore vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 5, Sehore

ITA 535/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69

stated above, the amount aggregating Rs. 3,45,00,000/- is to be disallowed under section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961 as "unexplained investments", to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961." 2.3 That it is also recorded ... making the addition of Rs. 3,45,00,000/- by treating the cash deposit made by the appellant in bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal OR alter, amend or delete any of the above

Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Sehore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sehore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 534/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Rathore, Ito, Ward-5 Collectors Bungalow, Sehore Sindhi Colony, Vs. Sehore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aappr2617B Assessee By Shri Harshit Choukse & Shri Kunal Agrawal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

compliances from assessee, the AO completed assessment ex-parte assessment u/s 144 vide assessment-order dated 06.03.2023 treating the deposits in bank a/c as unexplained investment u/s 69 and thereby determining total income at Rs. 3,45,00,000/-. (ii) Simultaneously, the AO also initiated separate proceedings for imposition

Uttam Developers, Indore vs. ITO 5(1), Indore

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 317/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiuttam Developers Ito 5(1) बनाम/ 256, Guru Nanak Timber Indore Vs. Market Dhar Road, Indore (Pan: Aadfu5485C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69B

Rs.3,71,25000/- u/s 69B of the Act. It was a Page 2 of 10 Uttam Developers ITA No. 317/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2014-15 case of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act despite opportunities afforded to the assesee. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1053276606(1) & that the same ... confirming addition amounting to Rs. 3,71,25,000 by alleging purchase consideration paid for acquiring immovable property remains unexplained and added as unexplained investment U/s 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961 by recording incorrect facts and findings in an ex-parte and arbitrary manner. 2.That on the facts

Sheetal Nath Colonizers, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(2), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result the impugned order is set aside as & by way of

ITA 1094/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisheetal Nath Colonizers, Ito 1(2) बनाम/ Plot No.48, M/S Sheetal Nath Bhopal Vs. Colonizers, Near Arya Bhawan, M. P. Nagar Zone Ii Bhopal (Pan: Abzfs4967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 60

detailed shown cause notice was issued on 21.02.2022 to furnish reply by 07.03.2022 wherein addition of Rs. 2,148,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act was proposed. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also proposed ... therefore, held that assessee made payment of Rs.2,14,58,000/- for investment in immovable properties out of undisclosed sources, I therefore, added back unexplained investment of Rs.2,14,58,000/- in his income u/s 60 read with section115BBE of the Act which is not recorded in the books

Infinity Buildcom, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur, Ahmedabnad

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

ITA 2671/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

well as on fact by upholding addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- made by Ld. AO being purchase of an immovable property treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by passing an ex parte ... assessee had purchased an immovable property amounting to Rs.45,00,000/-, which remained unexplained and accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,42,59,903/-, and also initiated

Jethabhai Gokulbhai Gol, Banaskatha vs. ITO, Ward 1, Palanpur, Banaskantha

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2668/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

upholding addition of Rs. 82,61,000/- made by Ld. AO being capital introduction in firm M/s Shiv Shakti Cold Storage treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact by rejecting additional evidences submitted during ... with section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the entire sum of Rs. 82,61,000/- introduced as capital in cash as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee. Consequently, the total income was assessed

ITO(Exemptions), Vadodara vs. Muslim Islahi Jamat, Vejalpur Road, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1854/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting addition of Rs.79,60,000/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of I.T. Act, 1961.” 3. The assessee is a charitable trust and has not filed return of income. The assessee trust purchased ... Assessing Officer made addition of difference between jantry value and agreement value amounting to Rs. 79,60,000/- and treated the same as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee

Akansha Yogesh Deshmukh, Bpcl Staff Colony vs. ITO/DCIT International Taxation Mumbai, Income Tax Building

ITA 8949/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

meaningful opportunity was provided by the AO at any stage of the proceedings. 4. Incorrect and Unjustified Addition of ₹93,08,940 as Unexplained Investment: The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of ₹93,08,940 as alleged unexplained investment/income taxable u/s 115BBE without verifying the Sale Deed

Mps Family Trust, Agra vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Agra

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

ITA 562/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Mps Family Trust Vs. Ito, A-25 New Shahganj, Ward-1, Morena Agra Pan : Aaftm7275G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, the 'AO' has grossly erred in making addition of Rs.7,48,400/- as unexplained investment of the 'appellant' under section 69 of the 'Act'. 7. BECAUSE, while making addition of Rs. 7,48,400/- under section

Selestina Tirkey, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 807/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.807/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Selestina Tirkey C/O. Aghya Kerketta, Ganga Nagar, Phase-Ii, Behind 36 Mall, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Arapt0339E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yash Dhariwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

part of the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the investment which the assessee has not discharged. Under these circumstances, the unexplained investment of Rs.17,93,624.00 is treated as deemed income of the assessee in terms of section 69 of the Income ... appellant share in the purchase of property as per the registered deed as at Rs.17.93 lacs and treated the same as involving unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of I.T Act. In the light of these facts on perusal of appellant submissions/GOA/contentions etc., it is noticeable that appellant is contending that, though

Shri Raghubhai Virabhai Bharwad, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 237/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271BSection 69

learned CIT(A)has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 2,10,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned ... 237/SRT/2023 Raghubhai Virabhai Bharwad Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– making addition of Rs. 25,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of running a dairy

Shri Raghubhai Virabhai Bharwad, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Navsari

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 236/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271BSection 69

River Bay City Capital Private Limited, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

ITA 755/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

returned income viz., (i). addition of the investment made by the assessee-company in time deposits by treating it as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act: Page. No 4 I.T.A.No.755/VIZ/2025 River Bay City Capital Private Limited Rs. 1,40,00,000/-; and (ii). addition of unexplained

Hotel Selection Grand, Tadepalligudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

ITA 741/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.741/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year:2016-17) Hotel Selection Grand Gollagundam Centre K.N. Road Tadepalligudem-534101 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakfh0778C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 Aayakar Bhavan, 2-1-56/1 Opp. Punjab National Bank K.N.Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Per Ravish Sood, Jm: : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca : Sri K.Prasad, Sr.Dr : 12.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश /Order The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, Dated 24.10.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short "A.O”) Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, "The Act"), Dated 06.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Firm Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: "1. The Notice Under Section 148 Issued On 18.04.20232 For The

Section 115BSection 142ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 234ASection 69A

vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 06.01.2025, based on his exhaustive observations made an addition towards unexplained investment made by the assessee firm towards construction of the hotel building under section 69 of the Act of Rs. 71.27 lacs [Rs.198.36 lacs (cost

Anju Bharat Chelani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2598/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69B

filing the appeal, though the explanation was available in the SOF to the appeal memo and thereby confirming addition of Rs.1,07,070/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE towards the purchase of shop in Mapple Tree Project jointly with others is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles ... grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant had made unexplained investment of Rs. 1,07,070/- in AY 2019-20 towards shop in Mapple Tree Project and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 1,07,070/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. 3.2 That

Srinivasa Reddy Yeturu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1898/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Shri Srinivasa Reddy Yeturu, Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aalpy0486H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Ashuthosh Pradhan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee, Which Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 11, Hyderabad, Dated 01/10/2025, For The A.Y 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashuthosh Pradhan, Sr. AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 69ASection 80DSection 80E

land. Therefore, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act as unexplained investment. The A.O has also made an addition of Rs.60,000/- towards deduction claimed under section 80D to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and deduction

Navin Shivji Patel, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 4120/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4120/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Navin Shivji Patel, The Deputy Commissioner No.49-E, Tenkasi Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Ilanji Subramaniapuram, Circle – 1, Ilanji S.O, Tirunelveli Tirunelveli – 627 805. Pan: Adjpp 6779M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Selvam Muthu Kumar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Selvam Muthu Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 144Section 250

submitted that the AO has completed the assessment on best judgment basis u/s.144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained investment, since the assessee has failed to respond to the notices issued from the office of the AO. The Ld.AR submitted that during the course

Natarajan Sridhar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 8312/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Mr. Natarajan Sridhar, Income Tax Officer, Ward – 42(2)(4), B3093, Casa Serenita Sobha City, Thanisandra Main Road Hedge Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Vs. Bengaluru, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Karnataka – 560 064 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aqkps5379Q (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya E.CA, (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

determining the total income at Rs.60,97,154/- after making an addition of Rs.10,10,694/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment pertaining to the investment made by the assessee in immovable property during the year under consideration. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings