← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Natarajan Sathishkumar, Palani

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 198/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.196/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Gurusamy Dhanasekaran बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abtpd-3576-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.197/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Natarajan Saravanakumar बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Azcps-8604-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.198/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Natarajan Satishkumar बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Auhps-8894-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 144Section 153C

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that unexplained investment in jewellery amounting to Rs.4,46,41,035/- needs to be telescoped against the additional income of Rs.16,65,98,557/-settled ... jewellery. Hence, the telescoping ought to be restricted to that amount and balance amount of Rs.2,22,18,431/- needs to be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR advanced arguments supporting the orders of Ld. AO and submitted that the allowance could be granted

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Natarajan Saravanakumar, Palani

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 197/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.196/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Gurusamy Dhanasekaran बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abtpd-3576-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.197/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Natarajan Saravanakumar बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Azcps-8604-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.198/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Natarajan Satishkumar बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Auhps-8894-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 144Section 153C

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that unexplained investment in jewellery amounting to Rs.4,46,41,035/- needs to be telescoped against the additional income of Rs.16,65,98,557/-settled ... jewellery. Hence, the telescoping ought to be restricted to that amount and balance amount of Rs.2,22,18,431/- needs to be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR advanced arguments supporting the orders of Ld. AO and submitted that the allowance could be granted

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madurai vs. Gurusamy Dhanasekaran, Palani

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 196/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.196/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Gurusamy Dhanasekaran बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abtpd-3576-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.197/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Natarajan Saravanakumar बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Azcps-8604-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.198/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Acit Shri Natarajan Satishkumar बनाम/ Central Circle-1 No.6/1, Sithanathan Street, Vs. Madurai. Palani, Dindigul Dist.-624 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Auhps-8894-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 144Section 153C

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that unexplained investment in jewellery amounting to Rs.4,46,41,035/- needs to be telescoped against the additional income of Rs.16,65,98,557/-settled ... jewellery. Hence, the telescoping ought to be restricted to that amount and balance amount of Rs.2,22,18,431/- needs to be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. 2. The Ld. Sr. DR advanced arguments supporting the orders of Ld. AO and submitted that the allowance could be granted

R.V.Raajah, Chennai vs. CIT(Appeals)-18, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 115/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.115/Chny/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri R.V.Raajah Acit बनाम/ #97/2A, Harini Avenue, Central Circle-3(2) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. Vs. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpr-4751-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms.R. Anita (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanian (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings were initiated by Ld. CIT(A) against the same on the allegation that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income towards unexplained investments. Consequently, penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee on 29-11-2019 on the ground that the assessee concealed ... assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 3. The Ld. AR stated that initially Ld. AO made addition of unexplained investment for Rs.449.94 Lacs for AY 2011-12 and made similar addition for AY 2012-13 for Rs.16.65 Lacs. During appeal proceedings, the assessee led evidences

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 996/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

difference of Rs.395.67 Lacs was to be explained by the assessee. The assessee admitted income of Rs.20.98 Lacs and therefore, the remining unexplained investment in business would be Rs.374.68 Lacs. 2.9 The assessee assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months ... computation of sundry debtors were rejected. The amount of Rs.374.68 Lacs was thus brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in money lending business. 2.11 The interest income for 10 months was estimated at Rs.265.27 Lacs applying rate of 5.5%. The total interest thus worked

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 995/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

difference of Rs.395.67 Lacs was to be explained by the assessee. The assessee admitted income of Rs.20.98 Lacs and therefore, the remining unexplained investment in business would be Rs.374.68 Lacs. 2.9 The assessee assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months ... computation of sundry debtors were rejected. The amount of Rs.374.68 Lacs was thus brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in money lending business. 2.11 The interest income for 10 months was estimated at Rs.265.27 Lacs applying rate of 5.5%. The total interest thus worked

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 994/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

difference of Rs.395.67 Lacs was to be explained by the assessee. The assessee admitted income of Rs.20.98 Lacs and therefore, the remining unexplained investment in business would be Rs.374.68 Lacs. 2.9 The assessee assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months ... computation of sundry debtors were rejected. The amount of Rs.374.68 Lacs was thus brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in money lending business. 2.11 The interest income for 10 months was estimated at Rs.265.27 Lacs applying rate of 5.5%. The total interest thus worked

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 993/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

difference of Rs.395.67 Lacs was to be explained by the assessee. The assessee admitted income of Rs.20.98 Lacs and therefore, the remining unexplained investment in business would be Rs.374.68 Lacs. 2.9 The assessee assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months ... computation of sundry debtors were rejected. The amount of Rs.374.68 Lacs was thus brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in money lending business. 2.11 The interest income for 10 months was estimated at Rs.265.27 Lacs applying rate of 5.5%. The total interest thus worked

Marimuthu Saravana, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 992/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.992/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.993/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.994/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.995/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.996/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Marimuthu Saravana Dcit 269, Navakadu, Mampalayam Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Agraharam Post, Pallipalayam, Coimbatore. Namakkal-638 008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aumps-8546-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 153A

difference of Rs.395.67 Lacs was to be explained by the assessee. The assessee admitted income of Rs.20.98 Lacs and therefore, the remining unexplained investment in business would be Rs.374.68 Lacs. 2.9 The assessee assailed the proposed computations, inter-alia, on the ground that notebooks were available only for two months ... computation of sundry debtors were rejected. The amount of Rs.374.68 Lacs was thus brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in money lending business. 2.11 The interest income for 10 months was estimated at Rs.265.27 Lacs applying rate of 5.5%. The total interest thus worked