← 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

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)
Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

Prakash Nimmagadda investment in shares of the companies for which there was no allegation about any unexplained investment or genuineness of the transaction falls in the capital field and not in the revenue field. 22. In case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore vs. Raj Diamonds, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 1541/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 69B

decide is whether this cash and unexplained stock when offered by the assessee would have to be taxed as business income or as unexplained investment in terms of provisions of section 69A of the Act. Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case ... books of accounts and also not brought to tax in the relevant assessment years. The AO has made additions towards excess stock as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act in absence of necessary explanation with regard to source for said excess stock. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Madras

Ketan Chandrakant Motta, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 203/AHD/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 69Section 69A

HDFC Bank. The Assessing Officer issued show- cause notice asking the assessee as to why the same should not be treated as unexplained investment under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act. After taking cognisance of the assessee’s reply, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.3

Badrinath Shreenivas, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1055/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1055/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Badrinath Shreenivas The Ito बनाम/ 605/A, 80 Feet Double Road Ward-1(2)(3) V/S. Rmv Club Vadodara – 390 015 Rmv Extension Ii Stage S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore 15-Karnataka, 91-India Karnataka – 560 094 (Karnataka) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adpps 0435 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Veeresh Budati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veeresh Budati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 250

assessed the total income at Rs.24,30,980/- by passing order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. The AO added Rs.9,07,102/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.15,23,878/- as unexplained income. The assessee also filed an application for rectification

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

business nexus of such Unexplained (Admitted to be as additional Income) sums, respectively. (iv) The applicable tax should have been charged u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment for Rs.66,50,000 (45,50,000 +21,00,000), AND, Rs.9,50,000/- (Unexplained Money) should have been charged ... SHRI ALOK VIJAWAT VS PCIT,UDAIPUR Income) sums, respectively and thus she noted that the tax should have been charged u/s 69 as Unexplained Investment for Rs.66,50,000 (45,50,000+21,00,000) and Rs.9,50,000/- (Unexplained Money) should have been charged

Mahesh Chand Sharma, Hapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(4), Hapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3835/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 3835/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mahesh Chand Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 2-1/896, New Shivpuri, Hapur, Ward-2(3)(4), Uttar Pradesh-245101 Hapur, U.P.-245101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aijps9843A Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065874993(1) Dated 20.06.2024 In Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69

Revenue’s vehemently contends during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned section 69 addition of unexplained investment in assessee’s hands amounting to Rs.60,00,000/-, in the course of assessment framed on 30.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate order

Pramod Kumar Rustagi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 20, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarpramod Kumar Rustagi Vs. Acit C/O. Advocate Kanika Jain Central Circle – 20 D-80, Lgf, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017 Pan : Aaepr 2763 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. & Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 127Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Without rejecting the books of accounts wherein the cash of Rs. 96,99,500/- stood incorporated, the AO added the relevant sum as an unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act. For so doing he reasoned that the increase in cash sales was not borne out from the past trends

Krishan Kumar, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward - 3(2), Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1157/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1157/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Krishan Kumar Income Tax Officer Hig-1, A-42, Swarn Jayanti Vs. Ward-3(2), Nagar, Ram Ghat Road, Bulandshahr, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Acvpk6982E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

made any payment for purchase of property in his individual status. In view of this the addition of Rs.12,79,600/- as unexplained investment made in the purchase of immovable property cash credit under Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted in full. 3. That in the case ... assessee and concluded as under: “5.1 Ground nos. 1 and 2: The appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 12,79,600/’- being unexplained investment contending that payment for the said property has been made by M/s D. K. Cold Storage and General Mills, Bulandshahr and no payment has been

ITO, W-1(3), Chandigarh vs. Smt. Renu Anand, Chandigarh

ITA 1353/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Samir Mahajan, CA and Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

Rs.1,95,00,000/- which has been claimed to be invested in purchase of property is treated as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee and treated as deemed income from undisclosed sources under the provisions of section 69 of the IT. Act. The balance amount of Rs.5

Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1309/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1309/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Sumitradevi The Ito बनाम/ Kamalkumar Agrawal Ward-5(3)(2) V/S. C/O.Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Ahmedabad 512, Times Square-1 Opp. Ram Baug Bungalow Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaupa 5783 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

payments involved. A show cause notice dated March 18, 2022, was issued to the assessee proposing an addition of Rs. 28,30,250/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The assessee denied any cash payments to NODPL and highlighted that no Smt. Sumitradevi Kamalkumar Agrawal ... Asst. Year : 2016-17 corroborative evidence existed to prove the alleged unexplained investment. It was argued by the assessee that since the property was purchased in the financial year 2010-11, no addition should be made for the assessment year 2016-17 under review. The AO did not accept

Sanjay Umarshi Dand, Malkapur vs. ITO Ward-1, Khamgaon

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

ITA 320/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

confirming the addition of Rs. 1,29,43,829/- u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the entire credits made to bank accounts as unexplained investments. 5. On the basis of the facts, circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified

Vaibhav Devidas Sakhare, Amravati vs. Income Tex Officer, Ward - 4(2) Amravati, Amravati

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

ITA 282/NAG/2024[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 69A

confirming the addition of Rs. 1,29,43,829/- u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the entire credits made to bank accounts as unexplained investments. 5. On the basis of the facts, circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Ujjain vs. Narsingh Bindal, Kannod

ITA 530/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs. 1,32,44,409/. The sole grievance of revenue is such that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition ... opening balance of unsecured loan of Rs. 1,32,44,409%, the said amount of Rs. 1,32,44,409/ is being treated as Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, r.w.s. 115BBE and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC

J.K. Jewel Craft, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw 4(2), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1140/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1140/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) J.K Jewel Craft Ito बनाम/ #287-E4, Sri Gujan Purandara Apartments Non-Corporate Ward-4(2) Perur Main Road, Telungupalayam Pirivu, Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajfj-8238-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R.Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

jewellery business to keep huge amounts of cash idle over a long period of time. Therefore, the amount of Rs.53.02 Lacs was added as unexplained investment u/s 69 and the assessment was framed. 2.4 Upon further appeal Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.7.59 Lacs on the ground that

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 517/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour On 10-12-2024, You Are Requested To Adjourn The Above Referred Matters & Oblige. Sorry For Inconvenience In The Matters”. Thus, The Assessee Has Not Spelt Out Any Reason For Seeking Adjournment In Spite Of Service Of Notices. Further, Perusal Of The Assessment Orders Also Make It Clear The Same Were Ex-Parte Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 516/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Your Honour On 10-12-2024, You Are Requested To Adjourn The Above Referred Matters & Oblige. Sorry For Inconvenience In The Matters”. Thus, The Assessee Has Not Spelt Out Any Reason For Seeking Adjournment In Spite Of Service Of Notices. Further, Perusal Of The Assessment Orders Also Make It Clear The Same Were Ex-Parte Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Kalpana Prakash Kale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Pune

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

ITA 1839/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69

Assessing Officer thereafter completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.98,45,021/- u/s 69 of the Act being unexplained investment in house property. 3. Since there was a delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee ... erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.98,45,021/- in respect of purchase of property as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, the source of which can be fully substantiated 6. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground

Chaitanya Narahari Bhosale, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

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

ITA 1510/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Dec 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250(6)Section 68

NFAC in confirming the additions of Rs.60 lakhs being the short term capital gain and Rs.5 lakh being the unexplained investment in fixed deposits made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. Since he has not filed return

Sheejamol Sainababeevi Aliyarukunju, Trivandrum vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infrutuous

ITA 758/COCH/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Jaikrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Snr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

assessing the income at Rs. 86,99,400/- in which the AO had made an addition of Rs. 86,74,400/- under the head unexplained investments. As against the said proceedings, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had invested in the residential ... loans but the ld CIT(A) had not properly considered the details and without conducting proper enquiry, had confirmed the addition made under unexplained investments. Not satisfied with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal with the following grounds: “1. This present appeal

M/S Sri Saravana Tyraders(Firm), Coimbatore vs. Iito, Non Corporate Ward-1(5), Coimbatore

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.380/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) M/S. Sri Saravana Traders (Firm) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.F.No.54/2, Non Corporate Ward 1(5) Pichanur Village, Coimbatore 641 018 Navakkarai Post, Coimbatore 641 105. [Pan: Achfs 2783D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Revenue to make addition u/s.69 or 69A of the Act. Because, the mandate of the provisions of Section 69 & 69A of the Act, i.e., unexplained investments and unexplained money etc., may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the financial year relevant to assessment year concerned ... 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