← 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

Quetzal Buildtech Private Limited, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Haryana

ITA 6409/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6409/Del/2025 Assessment

Durgawati Panday, Baikunthpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward No 01, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.14/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Durgawati Panday Ward No.9, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya Chhattisgarh-497 335 Pan: Dsipp8404G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 3Section 68Section 69A

assessee by way of self speaking documentary evidence and explanation. Secondly, the AO has made addition u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investments, whereas the assessee has not made any investment either in movable or any immovable property during the relevant period by way of using cash

Shiv Prasad Ram, Bokaro vs. Assessing Officer, Bokaro

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

ITA 393/RAN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Shiv Prasad Ram, I.T.O., Near Petrol Pump, Sector-9/A, Basanti Ward 3(1), Vs. More, Sector-Ix, S.O. Alkusa, Bokaro. Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aqepr 2909 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10(12)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 192Section 194ASection 69Section 80C

evidence such as Shiv Pd. Ram Vs ITO the superannuation order and bank statements provided during the appellate proceedings. The fixed deposits were not unexplained investments but directly linked to retirement funds, which were tax-free in nature. c) Non-Consideration of Exemption Claim The appellant had failed to claim ... through valid documentary evidence. The linkage between the funds received from SAIL and the fixed deposits has been demonstrated with bank records, showing no unexplained investment. f) Disallowance under section 80C The CIT(A) also erred in disallowing the deduction under Chapter VI-A (Section 80C). The Appellant claimed

Santosh Laxman Malusare, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3075/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Laxman Malusare, Vs Ward-5(2), Pune. Lahagaon, Moze Ali Haveli, Pune – 411047. Pan: Awzpm1600M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rushab Shah Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 14.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 24.11.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That Re-Opening Of The

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 250Section 698

Without prejudice to all the foregoing grounds, it is submitted that the addition of cash deposits of INR 32,74,500 as unexplained investment under section 698 of the Act is invalid, unsustainable and bad in law. The impugned addition has been made without proper appreciation of facts, without considering

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ahmednagar vs. Deepak Baburao Vispute, Kopargaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2399/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Smt Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

treated the undisclosed stock detected during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act amounting to Rs.4,42,86,847 as unexplained investment to be taxed by applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.2

Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

ITA 582/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.582/Bang/2025

For Appellant: CA Darshit Naik, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

make an addition u/s. 69 of the Act. 7. Both lower authorities erred in holding that the gift received for assesses's sister has unexplained investment in terms of section 69 of the Act. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or all Grounds ... Vikram H Virdi 15,000/- Total 76,00,000/- 4.3 The AO however, held that the assessee has failed to furnish the source of unexplained investment of Rs.76,70,000/- as the assessee failed to furnished proof/ details like- 1. Receipts from the builder towards the above said payments

Jaishri Shivaji Waghralkar, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 22(1)(6), Mumabi

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

ITA 6781/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Jaishri Shivaji Waghralkar Income Tax Officer – Ward 22(1) 102A, Dadasaheb Phalke (6), Mumbai Marg, Navin Asha Chs, Vs. Dada (East), Mumbai 400014 (Pan: Aaupw9953G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ca Revenue : Shri Sushil B. Shendge, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080005281(1), Dated 26.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1)(5), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit (A)", Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte. The Appellant Respectfully Submits That The Notice Dated 10-7-2025 Remained Non-Complied Only On Account Of Non-Communication Of The Same To The Appellant. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Appeal Order Without Any Further Notice To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

addition of Rs. 92,46,450/- made u/s. 69 of the Act in respect of investment in shop premises by treating the same as unexplained investments. The appellant respectfully submits that the entire source in respect of the above investment can be explained with documentary evidences and prays that ... explanation of the assessee in absence of documentary evidences. Assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 92,46,540/- on account of unexplained investment in shop premise by applying provisions of section 69. Addition of Rs.10,40,000/- was also made towards deposit of cash in her bank account

Mayuri Poddar, Sagar vs. Incone Tax Officer Ward 3, Sagar

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

ITA 174/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

this ground. It is requested kindly delete the addition made by AO. 2. AO has made addition of 7,99,500/- on account of unexplained investment i.e. assuming that the assessee has repaid seemed loan of Rs. 7,99,500/- obtained from bank as paid out of books whereas

Venkata Rao Pogarthi, Narsaraopet vs. Neac (CIT Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Itat With A Delay Of 55 Days. During The Hearing Proceedings Before

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 69

Rs.3.75 crores, which was withdrawn to utilise for his business purposes. The contention of Ld.AR of appellant is that Section 69,which deals with unexplained investment cannot be applied because there is no investment at all, not to speak “unexplained” because the money was withdrawn from their regular bank account

Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

circumstances of the case and has arbitrarily upheld the addition of Rs.88,55,128/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 being unexplained investment in purchase and sale of Bitcoins, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law, the addition made be deleted. 1 Surya Pratap Singh

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

erred in law and facts by confirming the addition amount of Rs.1,35,82,765/- u/s 69 of the Act and treated it as unexplained investment, and therefore the learned AO should be directed to delete the impugned addition while computing the total income. 6. That the learned CIT(Appeal ... under section 69A of the Act, Rs.6,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act, Rs.1,35,82,765/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in respect of transactions with Bhargava Lodha Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd., and Rs.34,96,643/- by estimating income

Mithlesh Amarnath Maurya, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Vashi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7731/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmithlesh Amarnath Ito Ward-28(2)(1), Maurya It Office, Vasi Flat No.302, Plot No. 17 & Vs. Railway Station 18, Hari Darshan Chs, Building, Navi Sector-9, Ulve, Mumbai-400 703 Maharashtra-410 206, Navi Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Asxpm2717M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Prajakta Arote, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

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

under section 142(1), the assessment was completed under section 144.The Assessing Officer held that: - The entire consideration of Rs. 53,87,000/- represented unexplained investment. - The alleged cash payment of Rs. 3,37,000/- was also unexplained. - Total addition of Rs. 57,24,000/- was made as unaccounted income ... filed her return of income for the relevant assessment year. It was noted that reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of alleged unexplained investment in immovable property and alleged on- money payment. The learned CIT(A) further took cognizance of the fact that in the case of the assessee

Rasila Lalitkumar Cholera, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 7544/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

which has been laundered in the form of bogus profit on sale of shares. Therefore the sum of Rs. 6,15,496/- represents the unexplained investment u/s.68 made by assessee in cash to obtain the equivalent amount as bogus purchase of shares. Alternatively, it can also be concluded that

Chetan Shashikant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7320/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

facts that the amounts were duly explained through banking channels and partnership withdrawals. Hence, the provisions of section 69, which apply only to unexplained investments or money, are not attracted, and the addition so made is bad in law and liable to be quashed. (e). On the facts and under ... completed the reassessment by making an addition of Rs. 78,05,200/-under section 69 of the Act, treating the same as unexplained investment allegedly made towards the purchase of immovable property. The Id. CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating the transaction as colourable device and repeating the contention

Rajendra P Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

ITA 6545/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rajendra P. Shah, Ito, Ward-24(3)(5), Mumbai 402, Anand Enclave Chs, Tps 3, 11Th Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Road, Santacruz (East), Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400055. [Pan No. Aydps7704A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

show cause notice was issued on 14.12.2019 to explain as to why the investment of Rs. 42,60,406/- should not be added as unexplained investment, fixing the date of hearing on 17.12.2019. No sufficient time was given to the assessee. The assessee has explained the source of investment ... assessee also explained that he has not claimed in short term or long term capital gain. The AO ultimately made addition on account of unexplained investment for purchase of share by taking view that complete details were not furnished. I find that before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written

Shantadurga Multi Purpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -M 2, Belagavi

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

ITA 205/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.205/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19 ) Shantadurgamultipurpose Vs I T O, Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, National E Assessment . Shop.No.13/14,Mangaldeep Centre, Apartments, Opp:Herwadkar, Delhi. Belgaum-590006, Karnataka. . Pan .No. Aahas7562F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)

u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of unexplained investment u/se 69 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a cooperative ... explanations and documentary evidences in support of acquisition of immovable property dealt at Para4.6.3 of the order, the A.O made an addition of unexplained investment u/sec69 of the Act of Rs.1,60,00.000/- and 3 ITA. No.205/PAN/2025 Shantadurga Multi Purpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. assessed the total income of Rs.1

Mr. Awaji Ganapathi Bhat Vittal, Davangere vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 691/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., , Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

assessee is aggrieved with the reopening of the assessment, transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 and the addition made of ₹ 5,469,543 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act . 3. The brief facts of the case shows that that assessee is an individual engaged in the business ... Therefore all these grounds are dismissed. 11. The solitary issue pressed before us is with respect to the addition of ₹ 5,469,543 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act being alleged difference in valuation of Page 7 of 11 closing stock as on the date of survey

Neeta Bhambhani, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, (It), Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 3124/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Adv. Ema Bindu, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R
Section 10(4)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

term deposits remain unsubstantiated and the payments/ transactions made by the assessee with respect to the term deposits made falls within the ambit of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Further the cash deposits made fall within the ambit of unexplained money

Balamurugan Rajsunil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1170/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250Section 69

source and creditworthiness of Mr. Shri Ram were not satisfactorily explained before the AO, the AO made the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 6.1 During the appellate proceedings, it was pleaded that the source of gifts by appellant’s brother Mr. Shri ... convinced that the cash deposited by the appellant during demonetization was out of unexplained sources and rightly taxed by the AO as unexplained investment in u/s. 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.40,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 69 of the Act is sustained. Ground

Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), Delhi vs. Hema Arora, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6324/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69A

A.Y.s i.e., AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17. 5.6 The AO assessed cash deposit of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained investment or monies u/s 69A of the Act which reads as follows, 6 “Section 69A. Unexplained money, etc.—Where in any financial year the assessee