← All Phrases

“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

Sanjay Ramnathan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 605/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2011-12 Sanjay Ramnathan, Dcit, Circle-26(1), 401, Bldg. No.13, Kautilya Bhavan, Indra Darshan Phase Ii, Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Oshiwara, Mumbai-400 053. Pan :Aacpr7701B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 144Section 148

Hence, the AO completed the assessment to be best of his judgment u/s 144 of the Act adding the value of immoveable property as unexplained investment. The AO also noticed that the assessee has received rent of Rs. 1.59 lakhs shown from the data available with the Income Tax Department

ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali vs. Amardeep Singh Hira, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 69

return, hence assessment was reopened. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, ld. AO was satisfied with regard to the source of unexplained investment in purchase of the property and did not make any addition. The AO took up a second issue vide which it was construed that a deemed ... believe had escaped assessment, had in fact not escaped assessment. In fact, the AO has not made any addition on the basis of unexplained investment of Rs. five crores u/s 69 of the IT. Act and of Rs. two crores as income from capital gains, which were the reasons

Pinal Prafulbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The It, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed

ITA 673/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

jurisdiction. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.30,00,000 as unexplained investment. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.30,00,000 as unexplained investment.” 3. At the outset ... shares of M/s. Riddhi Siddhi Recylers Private Limited. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting of Rs.30,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment is held as correct and justified. In view of above, I do not have any material to interfere with the order passed

Sanah Begum, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1383/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
Section 144

wherein the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,96,78,240/- after making two fold additions, viz. (i) addition on account of unexplained investments in purchase of two properties u/s 69 of the Act: Rs.1,45,00,000/-; and (ii) addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank account ... illiterate and knows only to sign in English or that she is not aware of the laws of the land cannot be accepted. Regarding unexplained investments, the onus/burden of proof lies on the part of the appellant to prove with documentary proof that the investment in its entirety belongs

Namasivayam Arunprasad, Chennai vs. ITO, Intl Taxn Ward-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 548/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.548/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & S.A. No. 24/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.548/Chny/2025] Namasivayam Arunprasad, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O S. Ramanathan, Advocate, International Taxation Ward 2(1), No. 4, Srinivasan Street, First Floor, Chennai. Mandaveli, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Adjpn0394E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Ramanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 144(7)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

I.T.A. No.548/Chny/25 & S.A. No. 24/Chny/25 is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act on account unexplained investments in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee is a non-resident Indian

Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-2, Madurai, Meenambalpuram Madurai vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1651/CHNY/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1651/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Income Tax, Circle -2, 79, Sanjeevi Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Madurai. Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012. [Pan:Adppj7550C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised Ground No. 1 To 2.3, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

Report of the ADI (Inv.) has initiated proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and completed the assessment by adding the entire cash deposit as unexplained investment in the hands of the appellant as per the provisions of the section 69A of the Act. 6.8.15 Now the issue before the undersigned ... whether the cash deposits made by the Appellant in the Bank Accounts can constitute the unexplained investment of the Appellant or not. The Appellant during the course of Appellate Proceedings has made available the relevant Bank Statement before the undersigned, which was very well available before the A.O. during

Sudhir S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1) (Erstwhile DCIT, CC -31), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/MUM/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 234A

directed to delete the same. 10 (III) – Additions made on account of dividend details/warrants Rs.51,67,438/- The details of alleged unexplained investment addition on the basis of dividend information is as under:- SUDHIR S. MEHTA Α.Υ. 1992-93 Details of Unexplained Investment addition on the basis of Dividend

ITO, Ward-4(4), Gurgaon vs. Tribhawan Kumar Parnami, Gurgaon

ITA 2120/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

firm and in the said background he treated amount of construction cost evaluated by the DVO at Rs.4,48,81,962/- as unexplained investment and has added Rs.1,12,20,490/- being the 50% share of construction cost of Rs.2,24,40,981/-for the AY 2013-14 as unexplained ... factual backdrop that both the department and the assessee seek to accept their respective stands in entirety against and in support of the impugned unexplained investment addition restricted to Rs. 1,12,20,490/- in CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. We find no reason to express our concurrence with either

Vijayarani Purushothaman, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 793/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 69

authorities erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,20,17,400 under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Page 2 of 5 3. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that the cash ... facts in holding that the appellant does not have sufficient cash balance for making cash deposits and therefore, they are treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 5. That the learned Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that

Sivan Chandran, Palakkad vs. The ITO Ward 5, Palakkad

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

ITA 172/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sivan Chandran .......... Appellant Panniperunthala, Kuttippallam P.O. Chittur, Palakkad 678014 [Pan: Ajzpc2703J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5 .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678014

For Appellant: Shri C. Suresh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 11,35,045/- by treating the deposit as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

Rs.2111000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit ... source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtained residential home

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 119/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

Rs.2111000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit ... source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtained residential home

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

Rs.2111000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit ... source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtained residential home

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

Rs.2111000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit ... source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtained residential home

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

Rs.2111000/- made by the Id AO to the income of the appellant u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained investment for purchase of agricultural land at vill Swaroopgarh Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi on the basis of page No. 5 to 9 of Exhibit ... source of payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- failing to which he further show caused why the said amount should not be considered as unexplained investment. In reply to the aforesaid SCN the assessee filed a written reply, wherein he submitted that the agreement was executed to obtained residential home

Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

dated 24.04.2023 to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.55,75,000/- paid in cash should not be treated as unexplained investment u/sec.69A of the Act and also requested the assessee to furnish the details of purchase of equity shares of Rs.1,09,462/- and sale of equity ... absence of relevant bank account statements, the Assessing Officer treated a sum of Rs.22 lakhs paid to the Vendor through banking channel as unexplained investment out of Rs.70 lakhs and made the addition of Rs.22 lakhs in the hands of the assessee to the return of income. Similarly

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

assessment year 2018-19, the AO has made addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, as unexplained investment. In the search conducted in the premises of the assessee, there was no incriminating material to disclose that assessee had advanced loan outside books of account to Shri O.Arumugasamy

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

assessment year 2018-19, the AO has made addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, as unexplained investment. In the search conducted in the premises of the assessee, there was no incriminating material to disclose that assessee had advanced loan outside books of account to Shri O.Arumugasamy

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

ITA 550/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

Unexplained investments u/s.69 of the Act (Presumed loan given to Mr.O.Arumugasamy) 2 Interest quantified as presumed earning u/s.56 of the Act on such loans 5,50,000 77,00,000 1,73,00,000 47,66,000 3 Total Addition

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

assessment year 2018-19, the AO has made addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s.69 of the Act, as unexplained investment. In the search conducted in the premises of the assessee, there was no incriminating material to disclose that assessee had advanced loan outside books of account to Shri O.Arumugasamy