“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

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

making an addition of Rs.65,36,709/- towards purchase of immovable property and Rs.20,00,000/- towards HDFC Bank deposit as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. Before ... Mumbai on 23.11.2018. The AO passed an exparte order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by adding an amount of Rs.65,36,709/- unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act along with undisclosed deposit of Rs.20,00,000/-. The ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the same, since the assessee did not furnish

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

Enrich Hair and Skin Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range 14 (1) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6331/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6331/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Enrich Hair & Skin V/S. Acit, Range 14(1)-2, Solutions Pvt Ltd. बिधम Mumbai 301, Kamla Executive Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Park, Vazir Glass Work Marg, Churchgate, Lane, Andheri East, Maharashtra-400020 Maharashtra-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce3307L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 80G

learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of RS. 4,700,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 without bringing or providing any corroborative evidence to support the allegation and without affording any opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine ... Enrich Hair and Skin Solutions Pvt. Ltd. therefore, hold that there was no justification for making the addition of Rs. 47,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The addition is, therefore, directed to be deleted. 10. In the result

Hardik Nagjibhai Dhameliya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward3(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the matter is hereby restored to the file of Ld

ITA 431/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Raj Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 69

brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, certain additions were made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee under Section 69 of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that in spite of issuance of several notices

Viraram Choudhary, Calicut vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Kozhikode

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

ITA 106/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Viraram Choudhary .......... Appellant 17/526-G32, Century Mall Opp. New Bus Stand, Calicut 673004 [Pan: Ahlpv0554G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward 1(4), Kozhikode Appellant By: Shri Rajesh Cherumanalil, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Cherumanalil, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 69

deposits. The appellant is fully prepared to present the required documents and reconcile the business income with the cash deposits. 3.5. Section 69-No Unexplained Investment: The addition of Rs. 10,21,000/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained investment should be reconsidered. The appellant ... cash deposits, which were, in fact, business proceeds. Therefore, the appellant respectfully submits that the addition made should not have been treated as unexplained investment.” 6. Furthermore the CIT(A), while dealing with the merits of the issues in appeal is bound to dispose of each ground by adverting

Sakkeena Abdul Karim, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 908/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sakkeena Abdul Karim .......... Appellant Palliath Memprom, Chokli, Kannur 670692 [Pan: Bqqpa6401A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the AO as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. From the grounds of appeal filed before the CIT(A) it is clear that the appellant had categorically stated that

Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.251/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ashutosha, 300 Kadamnagar Ward-1(3)(1), V/S. Nr. Mehsana Nagar Vadodara Nizampura, Vadodara-390 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acspp 2248 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Whereby The Cit(A) Upheld The Addition Of Rs.2,78,14,620/- Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao”] Under Section 69 Of The Act As Unexplained Investment. Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

addition of Rs.2,78,14,620/- made by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as "AO”] under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee filed his return of income ... capital was not routed through the assessee’s own account. Consequently, the AO treated the entire capital of Rs.2,78,14,620/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added it to the income. Dahyabhai Shankarbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 3. The assessee preferred

Aruldoss Johnson Sugirtharaj, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 69/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C.Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 144Section 69

made ex-parte an addition of Rs.19,87,000/- on account of cash deposits during demonetization in the assessee bank account treating as :- 2 -: unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further made an addition of Rs.11,59,157/- as unaccounted business income. Assessee further challenged

Ramesh Ramani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

fact, AO made an addition of Rs.8,06,500/- on account of cash deposits during demonetization in the assessee bank account treating as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act before the ld.CIT ... exemption was not available even for such mobile top up services. Hence, the balance cash deposit amounting to Rs.8,06,500/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the IT Act and added to the total income for which tax will be levied as per Sec. 115BBE." (emphasis supplied

Senniappan Mani, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3230/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Senniappan Mani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7, Sivasakthi Nagar, Ward 2(1) 1St Street, K T C Main Road, Tirupur. Parappalayam, Tirupur 641 604. [Pan: Bbnpm 7005C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Senthil Kumar, Advocate Virtual, Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 01.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 232 Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Stated In Condonation Affidavit Given By The Assessee, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein Ao Had Made Addition Of Rs.1,00,98,950/- U/S 69 On Account Of Unexplained Investment & Rs.1,11,66,838/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unexplained Money. Assessee Further Challenged The Order Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Before The Ld.Cit(A) Who Did Not Admit The Appeal Of The Assessee For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax Which Was Payable In The Light Of The Mandatory Provision Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act. The Assessee Is Now In Appeal Before The Tribunal With The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Shri. Senthil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT

Section 147Section 207Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 69Section 69A

r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act wherein AO had made addition of Rs.1,00,98,950/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained Investment and Rs.1,11,66,838/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained money. Assessee further challenged the order of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B

Kamaraj Selvaraj, Chennai vs. Income Tax Office, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 3117/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

above details against the show-cause notice issued, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits of ₹.1,54,59,200/- during demonetization period as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and disallowed the expenses towards payments made towards salary, rent and vehicle maintenance totalling ... assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 69 of the Act towards cash deposits of ₹.1,54,59,200/- being unexplained investments made during demonetization period for the reason that the assessee could not furnish corroborative evidences/documents, which is not sufficient to explain the source

ITO-41(4)(1), Mumbai vs. Farhat Yusuf Shaikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 770/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Ito-41(4)(1) Farhat Yusuf Shaikh 8Th Floor, Room No. 854A, Kautilya B-702, Blossom Park, Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Opp. Farooq School, S. V. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 144Section 68

Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition made of Rs.3,20,44,500/- u/s. 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in properties. 9. Briefly, the facts are, based on AIR information available on record, the A.O. found that in the year under consideration, the assessee ... query made, the A.O. while completing the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act added back the amount of Rs.3,20,44,500/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. In course of proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee explained the reasons for which he could not participate

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan, Rani Mansion, Second Floor, Murbad Road vs. Navjeevan Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Kalyan, Thankar Pada, Kalyan West

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is rejected

ITA 5000/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5000/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2012-13) Ito, Ward 3(1), Kalyan V/S. Navjeevan Sahakari 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, बिधम Patpedhi Maryadit, Kalyan Murbad Road, Kalyan 14-15, Panchdhara West, Maharashtra-421301 Apartments, Thankar Pada, Kalyan (West)-421301 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam5330Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri V. G. GindeFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Pande

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Further, the additions were made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of Rs. 2,22,07,124/- and unexplained investment of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- u/s 69 and 69B of the Act. The total income was assessed at Rs. 4,36,68,861/-. 4. Aggrieved with

Nirmal Purshotam Bhatia, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Kalyan

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

ITA 3962/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 69A

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made of 18,75,76,680/-by Assessing Officer as unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act. 3. The appellant craves leave to add and/or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Periwal Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 364/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69B

balance amount of Rs.3,08,08,259/- and Rs.2,65,89,615/- has been added by the AO under Section 69B on account of unexplained investment in the total income of the assessee for these assessment years. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, assessee carried the matter in appeal in both ... property as valued by the DVO and as per books of account. There is no reference of any incriminating material found during search indicating unexplained investment in immoveable properly. 5.3.3 Now this issue of scope of assessment u/s 153A of the Act has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Periwal Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 363/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69B

Ch.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Proddatur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 37

assessee. 6. (a) The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,34,486/- made on presumption, without any evidence towards unexplained investment by the assessee. (b) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the impugned jewellery belongs to the assessee's family members ... search proceedings conducted U/s.132 of the Act at the residential premises of the assessee on 25/11/2010. 2,35,000 5. Addition towards unexplained investment in jewellery1569.5 gms (gross weight) found in the course of the search proceedings conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 25/11/2010

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Aliya Nasser Aziz (Late) L/R Nasser Aziz, B'Lore, Bangalore

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 486/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

ought to have deleted the entire addition of Rs.49,70,000/-(instead of Rs.4,00,000/-) made towards alleged unexplained investment in property at Muniswamiappa Road, Bangalore, since the same was made on hearsay basis without examining the owner of the property as to the correct purchase consideration involved ... amount of Rs.49,70,000/-. 3. (a) The CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.37,00,000/- made towards alleged unexplained investment in purchase of property at Horamavu village, Hubli. (b) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate violation of principles of natural justice in denying the assessee

Nasser Aziz An, B'Lore, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 374/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Nasser Aziz An, B'Lore, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 373/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A