← 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

Girdhari Lal Choughary, Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bellary

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

ITA 2092/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 69A

unexplained cash investment under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The AO's reasoning for treating the cash deposits as unexplained investment was as follows: 1. The assessee failed to justify the necessity of holding such a large amount of cash in hand despite having banking facility ... loans to the same companies. . Page 3 of 6 5. As a result, the AO treated the sum of Rs. 11,45,000 as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act and added it to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by this addition, the assessee appealed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Magnetic Properties Exim Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2617/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Magnetic Properties Exim Pvt. Ward-7(2)(1), Ltd., Room No. 126-H, Vs. 477, Babyloan Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Adenwala Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Matunga, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Aagcm8999K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

noticed that the AO is making addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 56 of the Act. Under the Act, unexplained investments will be covered by sec.69 of the Act and cash credits will be covered by sec.68 of the Act. Section 56 relates to the „Income from other sources‟ including certain receipts

ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi vs. Army Wives Welfare Association, Delhi

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

ITA 2350/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember Ito, Ward 52 (1), Vs. Army Wives Welfare Association, Delhi. Branch Army Hq Dhq Po, Delhi – 110 001. (Pan: Aabta3953B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyen Sethi, Advocate Shri A.T. Panda, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Order : 11.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 03.07.2023 For Ay 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Is Working For Welfare Of War Widows, Children Of War Widows Deprived & Needy Army Dependents Of Serving & Retired Army Personnel. It Basically Supports The Widows To Help Them

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12A

cash and the same has already been considered as part of gross receipts, accordingly, he deleted the addition. 8. Further with regard to unexplained investment of Rs.1,82,43,279/- as unexplained investment in time deposits, he observed that the assessee has purchased RBI Bonds and also made ... Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by allowing relief to the assessee on account of additions of Rs.1,82,43,279/-(unexplained investment in Time deposits) made u/s 69A R.W.S. 115BBE of the LT. Act by entertaining additional evidences in violation of provisions of rule

Minal Prashant Vakil Legal Heir of Late. Prashant Rasiklal Vakil, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officerward 1, International Tax Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1546/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 69

Rs.47,75,492/- which includes Rs. 22,61,509/- received from relatives. Therefore the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.47,75,492/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 4. Aggrieved against the same, assessee filed an appeal before ... learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.47,75,492/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the income tax Act 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, The learned CIT(A) in his order dated

Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 604/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.604/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nishat Husseianli Vazir, Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune. 7 M.G. Road, 36, Wonderland Camp, Pune- 411001. Pan : Adapv3432C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,06,83,929/- Instead Of Return Income Of Rs. 5,08,729/-. 2. The Appellant Contends That Unfortunately, The Appellant Failed To Check The Itba Portal & Learn About The Opportunities Of Hearing /Making Submission Before It Authorities & Neither Got Any Email Communication From The Office Of Learned Cit(A). Further, The Appellant Contends That Appellant Is Certainly Keen To Pursue The Matter On Merits & Facts.

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs 32,50,000/- as an unexplained investment being a purchase of immovable property. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition ... learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition made u/s 69 of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as an unexplained investment being a purchase of immovable property.” 4. It is found that the instant appeal is filed with the delay of 194 days. The application

Rashmi Arun Chougule, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 2202/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 148Section 250

appellate order passed may please be deleted. 2 The Income Tax officer erred in adding a sum of Rs.25,96,575.00 on account of unexplained investment. The appellant has obtained loan of Rs.31,50,000.00 from GEOJIT Financial Services Limited and the same amount had been invested with GEOJIT Comtrade

Savery Transport Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corp Circle 6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 899/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.899/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Savery Transport Finance Limited Acit बनाम/ 38, 3Rd Floor, Spl Sriram Nivas, Non-Corporate Circle-6(1) Venkatakrishna Road, Mandaveli, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 028. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5006-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (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 : 10-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 80G

issued to 108 parties which largely remained un-responded. Considering the same, Ld. AO added the amount of Rs.14.84 Lacs as unexplained investment. The assessee made donation of Rs.60 Lacs to Anna Charitable Trust and claimed 50% deduction u/s 80G. Since no response was received from donee entity

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

Rs.43,26,46,526 - Rs.14,37,84,0031] for which the source is not explained requires to brought to tax as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and taxed u/s 115BBE. b) On further verification it is noticed that you have advanced an amount of Rs.43

Mangattuparambil Ashokan Nair Sreeraj, Aimanam vs. ITO, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals as well as the stay application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 85/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

have been accepted by the AO. We fail to understand the action of the AO, treating the amount deposited after 10th November, 2016 as unexplained investments, particularly when all entries of sale and purchase had not been doubted by the AO. It is also not the case

Mangattuparambil Ashokan Nair Sreeraj, Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals as well as the stay application filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 60/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

have been accepted by the AO. We fail to understand the action of the AO, treating the amount deposited after 10th November, 2016 as unexplained investments, particularly when all entries of sale and purchase had not been doubted by the AO. It is also not the case

Attu Puratt Ismail, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 302/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Attu Puratt Ismail Attu Purat House, Kadavathur Thalassery, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfpi7474M] .......... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2, Kannur .......... Respondent

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144

Attu Puratt Ismail 22.10.2018 and completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- as unexplained investment. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution placing

Ayalattu Chandrasekharan Pillay Vijayakumar, Alappuzha vs. DCIT International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 170/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms.Lekshmi N, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR
Section 143(3)Section 69B

total income of Rs.54,52,680. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.50,17,500 as unexplained investment on purchase of property of 2 ITA No.170/Coch/2023. Sri.Ayalattu Chandrasekharan Pillay Vijayakumar. 15.99 acres situated at Alappuzha Municipality on the side of the NH 66. Based on the information furnished ... received as against the value of Rs.90 lakh shown in the sale deed, the AO made addition of Rs.50,17,500 as unexplained investment, rejecting the contention of the assessee that the provisions of sec.69B have no application to the facts of the case. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Subhash Tyagi Prop. M/S Krishana Construction, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1343/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2017-18

For Respondent: Sh.Sandeep Sapra, Adv
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by AO on account of unexplained investment in purchase of jewellery and submission produced before CIT (A) is after thought 2. On facts and circumstances of the case

Vandana Dipakbhai Parmar, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

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

ITA 1712/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 250Section 69

Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– land and shares is very well explainable along with relevant documents and as such can’t be considered as unexplained investments. 1.02 Your appellant prays your Honour to hold so now and direct the ld. AO to delete additions made.” 3. In this case ... Section 147 r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, determining total income of the assessee at Rs.18,19,630/-, making additions on account of (i) unexplained investment in immovable property amounting to Rs.13,17,955/- and (ii) unexplained investment in shares amounting to Rs.5,01,672/. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed

Virtiben Preyashkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1464/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment application filed
Section 115BSection 234BSection 250Section 69A

bank account during the entire year, and hence, only net addition of the cash deposited in the bank account can be considered to be unexplained investment of the Appellant. It is submitted that it be so held now and the learned Assessing Officer be directed to compute the net addition

Jyoti Nitin Chaporkar, Amravati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 69Section 69C

08/11/2016 provided by the Government. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the assessee and made addition of ` 7,34,234, as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act for ` 5,870, on account of purchase difference and made addition under section

Vaishnav Yashwant Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

loans from various parties of the assessee, which was considered by the NaFAC and addition of Rs. 14,11,133/- was only treated as unexplained investment without accepting his contention that payment was made from agricultural land sold at Rs.27,36,866/-. The assessee further stated that the entire stamp

Yashwant Pandurangji Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Nagpur - 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/NAG/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

issued were discussed and considered at the time of assessment proceedings and addition were made at Rs. 14,11,133/- U/s. 69 as unexplained investment 2 Yeshwant Pandurangji Ashtankar and the appeal is pending before National Faceless Appeal Centre, therefore, again re- examine on same issue is unjustified, unwarranted ... assessee has preferred appeal against the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act and addition made U/s. 69 as unexplained investment at Rs. 14,11,133/- and the same issue has to be merged with the appellate proceedings, therefore again passing order U/s. 263 is unjustified

Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 557/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 55A

respect to sale consideration. Scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 29.12.2016 determining the total income as 37,70,010/- by adding (i) unexplained investment Rs.1,00,000/- and (ii)Rs.13,99,756/0 towards additional capital gain as admitted by theassessee in his revised statement of computation of income

Subbiyan Rathinakumar, Coimbatore vs. Iro, Ncw-3(2), Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1655/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133ASection 148

assessee as under: Income returned Rs.41,20,890/- Less: Income added under "Other sources Rs.25,00,000/- other income" Rs. 16,20,890/- Add: Unexplained investments - under sec.69 Rs.35,50,000/- To be taxed under sec.115BBE Assessed Income Rs.51,70,890/- Agricultural income Rs. 1,20,000/- 13. We note ... Rs.41,20,000/- and reduced the returned income at Rs.16,20,890/- and thereafter, added Rs.35,50,000/- u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment, which action can’t be countenanced when the assessee has offered in his RoI Rs.41,20,890/- and in the computation of income has clearly