← 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

Revathi Modern Rice Mill, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Hosur

In the result, the appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 889/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.889/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Revathi Modern Rice Mill Acit बनाम/ 34/2, Attur Main Road, Circle-1 Vs. Ayothiapatinam, Salem-636 103. Hosur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfr-9657-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69B

fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,86,31,392/- as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69B of the Act and consequently erred it confirmation the taxation of such sum at an enhanced rate of tax in terms ... income of the appellant under the head 'Business Income', the shifting of such sum as deemed income by reckoning the same as unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act for standalone tax as per Section 115BBE of the Act was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Kolkatta vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2150/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

deposited in the account maintained with the assessee society has been added in his hand u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Thus, it was submitted that since the assessment Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co–operative Society Ltd. ITA no.2149/Mum./2022, ITA no.2138/Mum./2022, ITA no.2150/Mum./2022 proceedings

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co.Op.Cr. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - CC- 2 (1), Mumbai

ITA 2149/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 2138/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Prasad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 13Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

deposited in the account maintained with the assessee society has been added in his hand u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Thus, it was submitted that since the assessment Mangaldeep Multistate Urban Co–operative Society Ltd. ITA no.2149/Mum./2022, ITA no.2138/Mum./2022, ITA no.2150/Mum./2022 proceedings

Pushp Lata Gautam, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-69(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2198/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

assessee was reopened under Section 147 r.w. Section 148 of the Act and an addition of Rs.50,50,000/- was made on account of unexplained investment in house property. The AO completed the re- 2 assessment proceedings ex-parte and the taxable income was assessed at Rs.53 ... husband and Rs.45 lakh were sourced out of bank loan. Thus, the source is clearly available and investment in house property is not an unexplained investment as alleged. The source of such payment, approximately 90% from the bank loan itself proves the bona fides of the assessee and absence

Rama Mohan Soma, Anantapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Hindupur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rama Mohan Soma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H.No.12-274-3, Bypass Ward – 1, Road, Kadiri, Anantapur, Hindupur. Andhra Pradesh – 515591. Pan : Aocps8172D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2012-13 Arises From Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.27.12.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 254Section 69B

order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69B of Income Tax Act, 1961 is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... money with evidence and creditworthiness of lenders inspite of being called for time and again. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained investment u/s 69B 3 of the Act and thereafter completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Harisneh Vanijya Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1)/ Kolkata., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 68Section 69

extracted by the AO at page 3 of the assessment order. Considering the reply of the assessee, the AO added the same as unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act by recording a the finding that activity of the assessee was very poor as there was only claim of expenses ... view of the above facts, the entire money of Rs. 10,70,45,000/- received during the year as share capital is treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and assessed under the head ‘ Income from other sources’ chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate as per Section

Mayank Tiwari, Indore vs. ITO-3(2), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 34/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Mayank Tiwari, Income-Tax Officer, 54, Anoop Nagar, 3(2), A.B. Road, Indore. बनाम/ Indore. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ahvpt0169P Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

Property” on account of deduction of interest on loan taken from bank and (ii) an addition of Rs. 21,39,708/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of house property u/s 69. Ld. AR demonstrated that the both of these additions have been made

Nitin Kumar, G B Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Noida

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

ITA 2612/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Nitin Kumar, Vs Ito, A-129, Omaxe Nri City, Ward-2(3), Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Noida. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201307. Pan-Ajcpk5527E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 142(1)

Because the Ld. AO has wrongly considered the share of the Assessee in purchasing the said property which is 18,08,066 as an unexplained investment and should not be straight away added in the income of the Assessee. 7. The Assessee has the right to add or modify

Mr. Kamalchand Ashok Mehta, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 92/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.92/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Mr. Kamalchand Ashok Mehta Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 27/13, Maruthi Apartments, Income Tax, Ekambareshwarar Agraharam Street, Corporate Circle 1(2), Park Town, Chennai- 600 003. Chennai- 600 034. [Pan: Aeypa1700P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 01.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 02.03.2023 Passed By The Nfac [Cit(A)], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 256 Days. To Condone The Said Delay, The Assessee Filed Delay Condonation Petition. Upon Hearing Both The Parities & Perusal Of The Arguments

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 250Section 69A

Rs.13,19,060/-. Under scrutiny, the AO determined the income of the assessee, inter alia, making addition of Rs.17,10,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi ... prayed to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. On perusal of the record, the AO made above addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained investment and admittedly there was no compliance by the assessee before the 3 I.T.A. No.92/Chny/2024 CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which is clear from para no.6

Kamaludeen, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 110/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.110/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Mr.Kamaludeen, Vs. Ito No.59, Denkanikotta Road, Ward-1, Opposite To R.C.Church, Hosur. Shanti Nagar(West), Hosur-635109. [Pan: Ajdpk0299D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 02.05.2024 : घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By The Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

scrutiny, the AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.22,27,541/- inter alia making addition of Rs.16,40,300 on account of unexplained investments u/s.69A of the Act vide order dated 14.09.2021 passed u/s.147 read with 144B of the Act. The same was challenged before

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Ramu Palaniappan, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1526/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1526/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Bharathi Krishnaprasad, CA and Ms. Krishna Laasya, Advocate
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 69

right in deleting the addition made amounting :-2-: ITA. No: 1526/Chny/2023 to Rs. 4,19,50,000/- on account of unexplained investments made in purchase of property u/s. 69 of the Act. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the ld. CIT(A) is right ... Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai (AO) passed assessment order on 25.05.2022, by making addition of 50% shares of Rs. 4,19,50,000/- as unexplained investment in purchase of property and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act, in spite of furnishing all the documents relating to obtaining of loan both

ITO-19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Irfan Mohamed Yusuf, Mumbai

ITA 3994/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

held that source of property purchased by the assessee amounting to Rs.3,05,53,800/- remained unexplained which has to be taxed as unexplained investment u/s 69 during the year. 5. Before ld. CIT(A) it was brought on record that the time when notice u/s.148 was issued assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Omprakash Gopaldas Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 3816/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the 1.T. Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment for purchase of property to the tune of Rs. 1,04,00,200/-?" Ground 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... property, assessee contended that it is out of internal accruals. However, the ld. AO treated the entire investment of Rs.1,04,00,200/- as unexplained investment to be added and taxed u/s.69 r.w.s. 115BBE. AO further added difference of Rs.3,39,800/- being the 4 Omprakash Gopaldas Agarwal difference between

Gujranwala Jewels, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambala Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 700/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 700/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gujranwala Jewels, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ambala Whole Sale Cloth Ward-2, Market, Ambala Kalka Chowk, Ambala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aapfg8259G अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Goel, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 69A

doubted or sales which is not justified. Moreover, receipt of cash represented by Sales booked as revenue in trading account cannot be considered as Unexplained Investment u/s 69A. 4. The ld. Counsel of the Assessee in his submissions has also brought on record some case laws in support

Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat Now the ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 351/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 351/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, 101-104, Gcp Business Centre, Vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Surat. Vijay Cross Road, Now Ahmedabad. The Acit, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacn7717N & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 496/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 The D.C.I.T, Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(1)(1), Vs. 101-104, Gcp Business Centre, Ahmedabad. Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Vijay Cross Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)

observed that once the source of investment has not been proved, the investment made by the assessee in the land was also treated as unexplained investment and added the sum of ₹ 13,05,35,880/- to the total income of the assessee. 13.2 However, the AO while making the addition ... aforesaid amount has also treated the land property acquired against cash at ₹ 3,25,08,000.00 as unexplained investment and made the addition to the total income of the assessee. Thus, the AO made for effective addition of ₹ 13,05,35,880/- under section 68 of the Act on account

Akshay Dilip Nahar, Jalna vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 953/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

support of the impugned addition. The Revenue vehemently argued in light of the assessment findings that the Assessing Officer has rightly made sec.69 unexplained investment(s) addition in light of the actual purchase price of Rs.12.55 lakhs as against the stamp value taken of Rs.66.30 lakhs, of the „capital asset ... thereof of Rs.66.30 lakhs. Suffice to say, the department‟s stand is that the impugned differential sum ought to be assessed as assessee‟s unexplained investment money by the Assessing Officer‟s reasoning. We find no merit in Revenue‟s instant arguments since there is not even an iota

Inderjeet Kaur Bhatia, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 49(1), New Delhi

ITA 2830/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Shivam Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 69

capital gain was also disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 5,36,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 143(b) & 144B of the Act creating a demand of Rs. 8,48,82,300/-. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee went

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

conclusion about unexplained/unrecorded purchase of the assessee. Without such finding of unrecorded purchase, the investment as per books of account cannot be treated as unexplained investment as the stock in excess is due to more production/yield on the manufacturing of agricultural implements. 11. Further it is concluded that stock which ... heads of surrender of additional income amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of excess stock found during the survey relate to the unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69 for which the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are applicable. The assessee

Chintu Realties Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal of the Ld. AO is allowed

ITA 354/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Rajan Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

addition of Rs.99,67,260/- was made on account of ITA No. 354/Ahd/2023 ( Chintu Realties Pvt. . Ltd. vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2010-11 - 2 – unexplained investment in purchase of immovable properties. Another addition of Rs.2,52,37,140/- was also made on account of unexplained income from sale of properties ... correct on the facts, in circumstances and in law in confirming the assessment of sum of Rs.3,52,04,400/- (Rs.99,67,260/- unexplained investment plus Rs 2,52,37,140/- unexplained income) which was reported by the Ld. Assessing Officer in remand report dt.09.03.2015 followed by the Ld Commissioner