← 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

Ajay Data, Alwar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income - Tax, Central, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 250Section 69A

jewellery found from the family of assessee is reasonable particularly when no evidence was found in search to suggest that assessee made any unexplained investment in jewellery. So far as silver utensils/ ornaments is considered, the AO out of 37960.05 gms(correct 37960.800 gms) found from locker and residence

Vijay Sadwal, Faridabad Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3554/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Paras Jain Ward – 58(7) 164-B, Gali No. - 5 Delhi Azad Nagar, East Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69C

justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,59,80,930/- u/s 69C of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained investment. 3. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the claim of assessee regarding the genuineness opening stock of Rs. 2,59,80,930/- in the absence ... assessing the total income at Rs.2,62,35,850/- wherein he has added the Opening Stock of Rs.2,59,80,930/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. Page 3 of 9 Shri Paras Jain (A.Y. 2018-19) 5. Aggrieved, the assessee approached

Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(5), New Delhi vs. Shrey Aeren, Delhi

ITA 2383/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2382/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Parveen Gupta Acit, H 240, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Vs. Central Circle 30, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaopg3625N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2383/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Gautam Gupta Dcit, H.No.97, 1St Floor, G Block, Vs. Central Circle 30, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Ajjpg3284A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

value of property shown in the safe deed and fair market value determined by the District Valuation Officer Delhi (“DVO”) on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition even though no incriminating material or evidence suggesting unexplained investment in the property was Sound during search or otherwise. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. Sumukha Holdings, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 797/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagraj Gaddi, AR
Section 142(1)Section 234Section 250Section 69

Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to Rs. 4,42,71,506/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The leaned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed ... been credited in the books, the source for investment in the property is duly explained and consequently the question of treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act does not arise and the addition made on a wrong premise by the learned assessing officer and confirmed

Irene Pereira, Udupi vs. ITO Ward- 1&Tps, Udupi

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

ITA 2273/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri. Ravindra Poojary, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 147Section 148ASection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

proper explanation about the nature and source towards purchase of immovable property worth Rs.73,64,000/-, the AO accordingly treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and assessed on a total income of Rs.73,64,000/- under section 147 r.w.s

Sureshbhai Raghubhai Thorat, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 426/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.426/Srt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sureshbhai Raghubhai Thorat, Vs. The Ito, Siddharth Villa, At Post Ozar, Ward – 7, Mota Pondha B.O., Valsad – Vapi 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acapt3507F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/01/2025

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 69

erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.4,10,00,000/- made on the ground of unexplained investment. 6) Each ground of appeal is without prejudice to the grounds of appeals. 7) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete, change or vary ... possible to verify the genuineness of the source of investments. The AO made the addition of Rs.4,10,00,000/-, which was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The same was taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Devraj Harshadray Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 93/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

assessment, the Assessing Officer did not accept the creditworthiness of these parties and added a sum of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 20. In proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing ... explain the source of balance investment of Rs. 32,96,140/- and therefore, this balance amount of Rs. 32,96,140/- was confirned as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained

Dushyantsingh Y Chudasama, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 530/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 530/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बनाम/ Dushyantsingh Y Income Tax Officer Chudasama Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara Vs. 23, Shreeji Krupa Society, Behind Kalpvruksh Complex, Gotri Road, Vadodara, Gurarat - 391774 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrpc1888M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri A. K. Khandelwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr 19/12/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 03/01/2025

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 57Section 71

assessee did not explain the difference amount of Rs.12,39,370/- (Rs.26,37,000-Rs.13,97,630), the same was treated as unexplained investment and added to the income of the assessee. 8.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the share of the assessee in the said property ... shareholding of the co-owners in the property had to be considered in equal proportion. The AO had, therefore, rightly added the balance unexplained investment of Rs.12,39,370/- on the part of the assessee. The addition as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is, therefore, confirmed. The ground taken

Siddhi Paragbhai Patel, Khambhat vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

ITA 1264/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 69

source, therefore the Assessing Officer made the entire investment of Rs.1,01,98,000/- and stamp duty of Rs.5,00,000/- as unexplained investment and added as the income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before ... valuation u/s. 50C of the Act. Thus Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the purchase of land as unexplained investment. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: a. The learned CIT(A) erred

Devraj Harshadrai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1093/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

assessment, the Assessing Officer did not accept the creditworthiness of these parties and added a sum of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 20. In proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing ... explain the source of balance investment of Rs. 32,96,140/- and therefore, this balance amount of Rs. 32,96,140/- was confirned as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained

Late Smt. Ramilaben Harshadrai Patel(Through L/H Devraj H.Patel), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1092/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 234Section 54BSection 68

assessment, the Assessing Officer did not accept the creditworthiness of these parties and added a sum of Rs. 1,32,90,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 20. In proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing ... explain the source of balance investment of Rs. 32,96,140/- and therefore, this balance amount of Rs. 32,96,140/- was confirned as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee (total investment of Rs. 1,65,86,140/- less unsecured loans duly explained

Pravin Harchandrai Agarwal (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. Income Tax Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reproduction of the document found in the search. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to make made addition of Rs. 19,65,150/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. While making the addition, the Ld. Assessing Officer made the following observations: "In response to above notices, the assessee ... cash quantum paid by the assessee. In absence of any corroborative evidence submitted by the assessee, the cash payment of Rs.1965150/- is treated as unexplained investment of the assessee and added to the total income u/s. 69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings

Shri Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vapi vs. PCIT, Valsad

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

ITA 666/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 253(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 56(2)(x)

should have added Rs.14,93,939/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act and actual purchase consideration of Rs.33,18,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. Therefore, the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued

Paul Nadar Jacab Thomas, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2606/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2605/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2606/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. Paul Nadar Jacab Thomas Ito बनाम 5/55, Bu Illam, Sindhu Nagar, Ward-2(4), / Vs. Udumalaipettai, Tirupur-642 126. Tiruppur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahnpj-9583-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

addition of cash deposits of Rs.145.84 Lacs in AY 2013-14 and addition of Rs.166.43 Lacs for AY 2014-15 on account of unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act. The assessments have been made on best judgment basis. Though the assessee preferred further appeals, it failed to make any representation

Paul Nadar Jacab Thomas, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tiruppur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2605/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2605/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2606/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. Paul Nadar Jacab Thomas Ito बनाम 5/55, Bu Illam, Sindhu Nagar, Ward-2(4), / Vs. Udumalaipettai, Tirupur-642 126. Tiruppur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahnpj-9583-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69A

addition of cash deposits of Rs.145.84 Lacs in AY 2013-14 and addition of Rs.166.43 Lacs for AY 2014-15 on account of unexplained investment u/s.69A of the Act. The assessments have been made on best judgment basis. Though the assessee preferred further appeals, it failed to make any representation

Sagar Jewellers, Porbandar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/RJT/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.222/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Sagar Jewellers Vs. Dcit Zaveri Bazar, Porbandar, Gujarat Circle-2(1), Jamnagar 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbfs5410L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. C. Thaker, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short ‘The Pcit’), Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 21.02.2024, For The Assessment Year (In Short ‘A.Y.’) 2019-20. 2. The Grievances Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thaker, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

Income-tax v. Deccan jewellera (P.) Ltd. AUGUST 2, 2021 held: Section 69 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained investments (Stock) - Assessee was engaged in business of gold and diamond jewellery and silver articles - Search and seizure operation under section 132 was conducted in case

Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Doshi, Surendranagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Girishkumar Ramniklal Vs. Income Tax Officer Doshi Ward-2, Surendranagar B-601, Retreat, Near Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpd2297E (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

grossed erred sustaining the addition as made by the Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Surendranagar of Rs.1,68,77,783/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned assessing officer has grossly erred ... could not be explained by the assessee. Therefore, new capital introduced of Rs.1,68,77,783/- was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter

Lanxes India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1125/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta and ShriDharmeshFor Respondent: Dr.P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 144

adjudicated together. 8. The Ground No.1 urged by the revenue is related to the relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A) in respect of unexplained investment made in purchase of shares of Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL). 8.1. The facts relating thereto are discussed in brief. The AO noticed that the assessee ... assessee has purchased 69,450 shares in the month of April, 1991. quantity of 80,550 shares. Accordingly, the AO treated it as unexplained investment and assessed a sum of Rs.1,23,13,150/-. Similarly, the AO had initially held that sources of 90,000 shares of M/s Grasim Industries

Inder Kumar Vaswani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 998/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(2)

provisions of section 69 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The provisions of this section are reproduced here under for ready reference:- "Unexplained investments 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account ... Inder Kumar Vaswani vs. DCIT added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the income tax Act, 1961 and taxed 60% as per provisions of section 115BBE of the income-tax Act, 1961. 2.2. Aggrieved from

Rajesh Choudhary, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment record ld. PCIT observed that during the survey proceedings, the assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs.22,62,143/- on account of unexplained investment. He further noted that out of this Rs.22,62,143/-, the assessee had disclosed Rs.22,50,000/- in his return of income. Therefore, the remaining ... have any explanation in respect of the amount of 6 SHRI RAJESH CHOUDHARY VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR Rs.22,62,143/- on account of unexplained investment and the same was surrendered during the survey proceedings. He noted that the assessee had shown in his return of income Rs.22