← 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

Navin Kumar Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer Faceless Assessment Centre, Indore

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 468/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 148

Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63 has held that in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales, the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said ... made any investment to make the alleged unaccounted sales. 6. Hence, in absence of any material on record to snow that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales, the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Smt Meenakshi Saraiya, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue and CO are dismissed

ITA 231/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central)- Smt. Meenakshi Saraiya Bhopal E-13/111, Arera Colony Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Anrps3407K Revenue By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Assessee By Shri Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)

justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9 ,24,925/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in jewellery without appreciating the facts of the case available on record?” 2. Ground no.1 is regarding addition made by the AO of Rs. 5.68 crores on account of undisclosed receipts ... impugned order of the CIT(A) qua this issue. 6. Ground no.2 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in jewellery of Rs.9,24,925/- deleted by the CIT(A). 7. Ld. DR has submitted that during the course of search and seizure action

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

received 1,00,00,000 for the movie "Kushi'- Hindi version Add: Remuneration received for the movie 13,00,000 'Kushi' - Telugu version Add: Unexplained investment 30,00,000 Total 1,83,00,000 Less: Office expenses and air ticket 14,61,586 Income assessed ... appellate order dated 31.03.2014. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.30 lakhs being unexplained investment; and regarding excess remuneration of Rs.1 Cr. which was added by the AO, the Tribunal remitted the same back to AO for considering the revised

Sundri Chimandas, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 969/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 969/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sundri Chimandas Deputy Commissioner Of 49, Old No. 27, T. Mangharam, V. Income Tax, Rattan Bazaar, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai. [Pan: Aabpc-1797-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

regards to the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making :-2-: ITA. No: 969/Chny/2023 addition of unexplained investment in stock being difference in valuation of stock found during the course of survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... been offered as ‘business income’ and hence it does not warrant addition u/s.69B of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the excess stock as unexplained investment by relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. SVS Oils Mills vs. ACIT

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

received 1,00,00,000 for the movie "Kushi'- Hindi version Add: Remuneration received for the movie 13,00,000 'Kushi' - Telugu version Add: Unexplained investment 30,00,000 Total 1,83,00,000 Less: Office expenses and air ticket 14,61,586 Income assessed ... appellate order dated 31.03.2014. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs.30 lakhs being unexplained investment; and regarding excess remuneration of Rs.1 Cr. which was added by the AO, the Tribunal remitted the same back to AO for considering the revised

Ravuthu Meera Ravuthar Abdul Razack, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pudukkottai, Pudukkoattai

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

ITA 1550/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1550/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Ravuthu Meera – The Income Tax Officer, Ravuthar Abdul Razack, Ward-1, 5, Kamarajar Stree, Alangudi, Pudukkottai. Pudukkottai-622 301. [Pan: Ahlpa 6315 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. D. Praveen, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

case for scrutiny and passed an ex parte order adding, inter alia, the entire sum (Rs.50,91,600/-) u/s.69 of the Act, as unexplained investment; and treated balance amount in bank account of Rs.2,93,51,283/- as the turnover of the assessee and estimated 5% as income ... Ravuthar Abdul Razack :: 4 :: that the credits/cash deposits are trading receipts, had made an addition of Rs.50,91,600/- u/s.69 of the Act, [as unexplained investment]; and the balance credit entries in the bank account to the tune of Rs.2,93,51,283/- was treated as the turnover

Kishore Ghevarchand Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms

ITA 278/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Kishor Ghevarchand Jain Circle -1, Kalyan D.C.I.T. 3Rd Floor, 1St Floor, Porwal Bhawan, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Near Vaishya Mandir Hall, Wayale Nagar, Kasarhat, Kalyan Khadak Pada, Thane - 421301. Kalyan (W.) - 421301. Pan: Aazpj6248E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The „Act‟ In Short] Vide Its Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057548827(1) Dated 31/10/2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Following Ground Of Appeal Have Been Raised:

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69Section 69C

erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,20.10,900/- being profit earned by appellant from trading in currency derivatives as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act 3 Mr. Kishor Ghevarchand Jain a. by failing to appreciate that appellant has already offered an amount of Rs.1 ... income from business in its return of income and addition of the same as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act will tantamount to double addition b. nowhere proving that the transaction carried out by appellant are non-genuine; c. the transaction in currency derivative carried out by appellant

Yasmin Sabir Ali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 188/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 144

erred in making addition of sale of property of amount 2200000. 2. AO erred in making addition of purchase of property of amount 7905400/- unexplained investment of whole amount. 2 ITA. No. 188/MUM/2024 (A.Y.: 2012-13) . Yasmin Sabir Ali, Mumbai 3. Credit as per 26AS income addition of renting

Kirthi Shetty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4736/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 69

addition of Rs.41,18,000/- under section 69 of the Act on account of term deposits in bank account by treating the same as unexplained investment. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, who though afforded 4 opportunities to the assessee by issuing notices

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Kalyan vs. Geeta Khare, Dombivli West

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4520/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The appellant craves to leave add, amend or alter or alter any ground/grounds which may be necessary." 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) and addition was made related to sale of shares for claiming Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.2,26,36,372/-. The addition was confirmed as concealed income amount to Rs.2,26,36,372/-. The penalty was levied at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which amount to R

For Appellant: Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal - AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 8. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal

Namita Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2980/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271F

Rs.70,81,650/- which includes income from salary of Rs.3,41,650/-. The AO further made an addition of Rs.67,40,000/- as unexplained investment in purchase of property. The AO passed order u/s 271F of the Act for non- furnishing of return on the ground that the assessment ... assessee was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making an addition under head “unexplained investment” even though the assessee contended that she is not required to file return of income in view of the CBDT Notification no. 9 of 2012 dated 17.02.2012. The penalty levied

Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 41/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala The Income Tax Officer 122 Kutbi Mohalla 1/N Kalupur Vs Ward-1(2)(4) Darwaja Ahmedabad Kalupur Ahmedabad – 380 001 Gujarat Pan:Eqepk 9096 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Sadhwani, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16 /05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 28.11.2023, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-2018. 2. Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Taken By The Assessee: Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Sadhwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

unjustified in treating the total cash deposits of Rs.14,10,000/- in both joint bank accounts held in name of 4 family members, as unexplained investment belonging to the appellant only. Both the Ld. Authorities have disregarded the fact that bank accounts are held in jt. names of [a] Appellant ... Head. 5. Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the above addition made by AO u/s 69A as unexplained investment from undisclosed sources rws 115BBE, in complete disregard of explanation about of source of deposits/other credits furnished by appellant during ass. proceedings, without giving

Margi Darpan Shah, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 664/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144

therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the entire amount of time deposit held by the assessee in her bank account as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Counsel for the assessee pointed out that while computing the short-term capital gain ... assessee, the assessee cannot be in a position to completely explain the source of deposit/credit entries/time deposits which have been added as unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may kindly be restored

Devineni Madhu Pavani, Nallajerla Mandal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 81/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.81/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Devineni Madhu Pavani Vs. Income Tax Officer D/O Somaraju, Tirumala Township Ward-1(4) Near Kanaka Durga Temple Visakhapatnam Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Bfgpm9285R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 144Section 249(4)(b)Section 69

Ld.AO is not justified in treating the 4 I.T.A. No.81/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Devineni Madhu Pavani, Nallajerla Mandal cash deposit of Rs.12,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, which was erroneously upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). He, therefore, pleaded to afford an opportunity of being heard before

Satya Phani Dattatreya Divakar Rampalli, East Vipparru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 66/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.66/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Satya Phani Dattatreya Diwakar Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Rampalli Income Tax D.No.2-2, East Vipparru Rajahmundry Iragavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Alepr8329N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69Section 69A

money 3 I.T.A. No.66/Viz/2024, A.Y.2017-18 Satyaphani Dattatreya Divakar Rampalli, Tanuku 4. The CIT(A) is incorrect in sustaining the addition on the account of unexplained investment 5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the present appeal is preferred

Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 167/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.167/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Pudipeddi Venkata Nagamani Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.43-3-34, Flat No.102 Ward-2(1) Ayyappa Residency Visakhapatnam Railway New Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan :Ajxpn9659G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt.A.Aruna, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

Assessment Year 2017- 18. Therefore, the AO treated the credits, including cash deposits appearing the bank accounts, of Rs. 12,81,726/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained

Malla Appalaraju, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

stock which was put to sale, net of all the 3 deduction. With regard to addition made by the Ld. AO towards unexplained investment U/s. 69, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the decision of the Ld.AO. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause penalty notice U/s. 274 r.w.s ... same is done on estimation basis. However, the total addition made of Rs. 39,58,613/- towards unexplained investment U/s. 69 attracts the provisions of section 27(1)(c) as the same amount to ‘concealment of income’ because the assessee was unable to explain the sources for the same with

Koonammavu Thomas Johny, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes on the afore-said terms

ITA 886/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Dileep Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

deemed as purchases, 8% whereof is estimated as profit (Rs.1,96,436). The non-cash credits in the bank accounts were, again, deemed as unexplained investment, and brought to tax u/s.69 (Rs.21,62,579), making a total addition of Rs.45,49,515. The same stands confirmed in first appeal, again

Sunita Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3775/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Tyagi, Vs Ito, R-7/120, Raj Nagar, Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201002. Pan-Aaupt3785H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahil Sharma, Adv & Shri Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 30.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 151

Assessing Officer ("A.O.") u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") imposing an addition of Rs.47,80,000/- as unexplained investment is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that reasons ... assessment order, as the Appellant possessed adequate funds for the purchase of the immovable property, rendering the impugned addition of Rs.47,80,000/- as unexplained investment unwarranted and liable to be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or vary any of the grounds of appeal

Sadashiv Nivrutti Navale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2 (2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 455/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

cash deposits in bank account as unexplained cash credit. 16. As mentioned earlier, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.53,31,980/- as unexplained investment being the cash deposits in various bank accounts on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of such deposits