← 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

Smt. Vimla Tripathi, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Kanpur

ITA 310/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Vimla Tripathi V. The Income Tax Officer 119/12 B-1, Darshanpurwa Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aevpt9734K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.08.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.01.2014, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,93,140/-. As Per Information Available With The Income Tax Department, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee, Along With Shri Siddha Kumar Tripathi, Had Purchased An Agricultural Land Admeasuring 0.6200 Hectare On 01.08.2012 For A Consideration Of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Ao Further Noticed That The Market Value Of

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

ignoring the fact that the case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. on the ground unexplained investment, however, the addition was made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), therefore the impugned Assessment Order is void ab-initio and liable

Ajmer Singh, Ropar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ropar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम Ajmer Singh, The Ito, Village Solkhian, Ward 2 (2), Patredi Jattan, Ropar Ropar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Evkps3238D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing )

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 35,50,000/- made by Ld, AO on account of alleged Unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Act. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

Lalitaben Dipakbhai Modh, Surat vs. PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 715/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271F

capital loss of Rs. 38,77,898/ Accordingly, your honour has held that amount of Rs 5,90,69,467/- should be treated as unexplained investment in securities and shares. Arguments: 6. At the outselt it is submitted that the reasons recorded by the assessing officer were factually incorrect ... assessment order after treating the entire sale proceeds of scrips discussed in revision order as unexplained deposits/receipts and further directing to make addition of unexplained investments of source of such investments and frame the assessment de novo. I.T.A No. 715/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 7 Lalitaben Dipakbhai Modh

Subham Developers, Salem vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 413/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

J. Sathish Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2574/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri J. Sathish Kumar Ito बनाम 47,Giriappa Road, T.Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-6(1), / Vs. Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abcps-7134-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sethuraman For Shri C.S. Hariharan (Ca)- 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 : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sethuraman for Shri C.S. Hariharan (CA)-For Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69

could be seen that the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis making addition of closing cash balance of Rs.54.81 Lacs as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. The assessee failed to appear during first appellate proceedings also and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 438/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Sita Sudhir Hotkar, Navi Mumbai vs. I. T. O. 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5735/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115ESection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 69

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming Rs. 1,18,66,200/- as unexplained investment u/s 69. 4.On facts, in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT-A, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming interest ... assessee, accordingly, notice u/s.148 was issued on 31/03/2022 after obtaining the approval from ld. PCIT. As per the information, the assessee has made some unexplained investment for purchase of property of Rs.1,18,66,200/- and accordingly, various notices were issued, however, assessee could not respond to notices sent

Bahadur Singh, Zirakpur Punjab vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department Delhi

In the result, the matter is set-aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee

ITA 577/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Spandeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR (Virtual)
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment under section 144 bringing to tax the cash as well as time deposit as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act as well as interest income under the head “income from other sources” and assessed income was determined

Naveed Hasan Murtuza, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Panvel

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

ITA 2022/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

confirming the action of the Learned Assessing in making an addition of Rs.3,78,600/- by treating the immovable property purchased as alleged Unexplained Investment, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned ... making an addition of Rs.32,43,348/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the purchase of equity shares as alleged Unexplained Investment, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 4 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Krishna Reddy Nalabolu, Kodad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 607/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.607/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Krishna Reddy Nalabolu Vs. Ito, Ward-1 Kodad Suryapet [Pan : Aogpn5115B] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law, Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Erred In Assuming That The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.46,89,500/- U/S 69A Of The Act Is Justified.

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

investment, needs to be examined. In case the assessee explains the nature and source of investment, then the question of making addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created

Elumalai Sumathi, Bapatla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1165/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Elumalai Sumathi Vs. Income Tax Officer Bapatla Ward-1 [Pan :Abipe4083C] Ongole (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri U.Mini Chandran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.36,60,000 As Unexplained Investment U/S 69 Of The Act After Having Admitted The Additional Evidence Filed By The Assessee Under Rule 46A. 2. Any Other Ground Or Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri U.Mini Chandran, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 69

A.Y.2016-17 on the following grounds : 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.36,60,000 as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act after having admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. 2. Any other ground or grounds ... reasons recorded, as per which, the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, on account of under assessment of unexplained investment in purchase of property for Rs.36,60,000/-. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.06.2019 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice

Masineni Hotels Private Limited, Anantapur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Anantapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 346/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.346/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Masineni Hotels Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1 Limited Anantpur Anantapur [Pan : Aahcm6211F] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Mohd.Afzal, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2016-17 On The Following Grounds : 1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,35,48,000/- Being The Difference In The Share Capital, Share Application & Other Loan Subscribed / Given By Managing Director Shri M.Ramaiah U/S 68 Of The Income Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), 1961 (The Act).

For Appellant: Mohd.Afzal, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 68

additions in the hands of Shri M.Ramaiah for the A.Y.2016-17 towards amount invested in the appellant company, amounting to Rs.2,35,48,000/- as unexplained investment and once 7 addition is made in the hands of the individual shareholder, then on the very same amount, no addition can be made ... issue. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer of Shri M.Ramaiah has assessed a sum of Rs.2,35,48,000/- in the hands of Shri M.Ramaiah as unexplained investment for the A.Y.2016- 17, which is evident from the assessment order passed in the case of Shri M.Ramaiah u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur, Jpr

In the result, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is also allowed and order declared to be bad in law, as the same violated the Principle of Natural Justice

ITA 420/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldinesh Kumar Chaurasia, M/S. Mahendra Gargieya & Associates, 537-539, Gargieya’S 5Th Floor, Mahima Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302 019. Pan No.: Abapc 0810D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur – 302 005. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

crores an unexplained in the hands of assessee which has escaped assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on protective basis. The unexplained investment to the tune of Rs. 164 Lacs on protective basis has escaped assessment in the hands of assessee which is chargeable to tax G) Applicability

Siyaram Exports India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 151/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Siyaram Exports India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(4), Jaipur

ITA 145/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Siyaram Exports India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 439/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said ... erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 437/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Shri Satish Chandra Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 436/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 43,56,284 as alleged unexplained investment. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said

Karim Tajdin Halani, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1113/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2016-17

Assessment Year: 2016-17 Karim Tajdin Halani vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 the Assessing Officer and merely estimation cannot be termed as unexplained investment from undisclosed sources. The decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Star Builders (IT Ref. No.9