← 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

Sarika Tyagi, Ghazibad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1414/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

payment of ₹1,59,59,893/- as reflected in the seized documents. The ld AO made an addition of ₹1,59,59,893/- as unexplained investment in flat made by assessee and brought to the same to tax u/s 69 of the Act. This was reduced ... Frystal Polymers on transfer from Central Himalayan Farms (P) Ltd on 19.10.2010. This transaction valued at ₹10 lakhs was sought to be treated as unexplained investment for purchase of shares in the assessment as there was no representation from the side of the assessee. From the order

Yogender Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

payment of ₹1,59,59,893/- as reflected in the seized documents. The ld AO made an addition of ₹1,59,59,893/- as unexplained investment in flat made by assessee and brought to the same to tax u/s 69 of the Act. This was reduced ... Frystal Polymers on transfer from Central Himalayan Farms (P) Ltd on 19.10.2010. This transaction valued at ₹10 lakhs was sought to be treated as unexplained investment for purchase of shares in the assessment as there was no representation from the side of the assessee. From the order

Naveen Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1412/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

payment of ₹1,59,59,893/- as reflected in the seized documents. The ld AO made an addition of ₹1,59,59,893/- as unexplained investment in flat made by assessee and brought to the same to tax u/s 69 of the Act. This was reduced ... Frystal Polymers on transfer from Central Himalayan Farms (P) Ltd on 19.10.2010. This transaction valued at ₹10 lakhs was sought to be treated as unexplained investment for purchase of shares in the assessment as there was no representation from the side of the assessee. From the order

DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Yogender Singh, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

payment of ₹1,59,59,893/- as reflected in the seized documents. The ld AO made an addition of ₹1,59,59,893/- as unexplained investment in flat made by assessee and brought to the same to tax u/s 69 of the Act. This was reduced ... Frystal Polymers on transfer from Central Himalayan Farms (P) Ltd on 19.10.2010. This transaction valued at ₹10 lakhs was sought to be treated as unexplained investment for purchase of shares in the assessment as there was no representation from the side of the assessee. From the order

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Sushil Tyagi, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1386/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. Sushil Tyagi, Central Circle, A-2, Ganpati Ghaziabad Apartments, Civil Lines, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aejpt6739A Dcit, Vs. Yogender Singh, Central Circle, J-6A, Sector-23, Ghaziabad Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Yogender Singh, Vs. Dcit, J-6A, Sector-23, Central Circle, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bgcos8548E Naveen Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, G-302, Vvip Central Circle, Addresses, Raj Nagar Ghaziabad Extention, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Admpt6420A Sarika Tyagi, Vs. Dcit, H-100, Patel Nagar,- Central Circle, 3, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afapt5986P Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ca Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv Shri Jaind Jaiswal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement /10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 68

payment of ₹1,59,59,893/- as reflected in the seized documents. The ld AO made an addition of ₹1,59,59,893/- as unexplained investment in flat made by assessee and brought to the same to tax u/s 69 of the Act. This was reduced ... Frystal Polymers on transfer from Central Himalayan Farms (P) Ltd on 19.10.2010. This transaction valued at ₹10 lakhs was sought to be treated as unexplained investment for purchase of shares in the assessment as there was no representation from the side of the assessee. From the order

Vasanth & Co, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

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

ITA 351/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2017-2018 Vasanth & Co The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.1308, Anna Nagar, V. Ward 1(2) K P N Colony Extn, Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur 641 601. Pan: Aabfv 6669F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, IRS, JCIT
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 3Section 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1316/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1315/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1314/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Vv Titanium Pigments Private Limited, Tisaiyanvilai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1313/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baram Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 37

which were subjected to scrutiny by Ld. AO. Assessment Proceedings 2. Based on search findings, Ld. AO proposed addition of- (i) Sales Suppression; (ii) Unexplained investments; (iii) Income by way of unaccounted scrap sales; (iv) Bogus expenses; (v) Unaccounted cash receipts; & (vi) other additions. The brief facts leading to addition ... Page No.10 of the assessment order. The aggregate addition made in these two years against the two parties was quantified at Rs.55.25 Lacs. 4. Unexplained Investments 4.1 The addition is on account of 1.83 acres of land purchased by the assessee during October, 2017 at Tutikorin District. The land