← 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

Gemini Haryanvi Charitable Trust, Delhi vs. Income Tax Department, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8297/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24

Section 143(3)Section 69

that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings adding an amount of Rs.16.50 lakhs as unexplained investment under section 69; in assessment order dated 10.03.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, it is noticed from ... dispute. Faced with the situation, it is hereby concluded that both the learned lower authorities’ action in making the impugned addition as unexplained investment in assessee’s hand would not be upheld. Deleted accordingly. 4. The assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th January

ACIT Cir-19(1), New Delhi vs. Shipra Bansal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4474/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICAL MEMBER, SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

determining the total income of assessee at Rs. 2,20,60,541/- by making an addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000/- towards unexplained investments in property. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee raised various legal issues including the issue

Ariba India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

4175/Del/2016 dated 18.06.2020 restored the matter to the file of TPO on the issue of Transfer Pricing issue and the issue of unexplained investment was restored to the file of AO. Accordingly, the TPO vide its order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 31.07.2021 proposed adjustment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

hands. The AO, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, added the entire amount of Rs.39.78 crores by way of unexplained investment in his hands. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have partly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.26 ... Court explained that if an addition towards undisclosed income was made and the AO also seeks to make certain addition in relation to unexplained investment then, it can be treated by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the undisclosed income already taxed. The principle which emerges

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

ITA 1595/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1488 & 1489/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1529, 1536, 1595 & 1596/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.45 & 46/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos.1595 & 1596/Chny/2025] निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Periyasamy Anbunathan, No.10/97C, Ayyampalayam, Thottakurichi Post, Karur-639 113. [Pan: Ahmρα 6511 H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.K. Reddy, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Department By : Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

hands. The AO, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, added the entire amount of Rs.39.78 crores by way of unexplained investment in his hands. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have partly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.26 ... Court explained that if an addition towards undisclosed income was made and the AO also seeks to make certain addition in relation to unexplained investment then, it can be treated by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the undisclosed income already taxed. 40. The principle which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

hands. The AO, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, added the entire amount of Rs.39.78 crores by way of unexplained investment in his hands. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have partly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.26 ... Court explained that if an addition towards undisclosed income was made and the AO also seeks to make certain addition in relation to unexplained investment then, it can be treated by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the undisclosed income already taxed. The principle which emerges

Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

hands. The AO, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, added the entire amount of Rs.39.78 crores by way of unexplained investment in his hands. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have partly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.26 ... Court explained that if an addition towards undisclosed income was made and the AO also seeks to make certain addition in relation to unexplained investment then, it can be treated by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the undisclosed income already taxed. The principle which emerges

Periasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

hands. The AO, not being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, added the entire amount of Rs.39.78 crores by way of unexplained investment in his hands. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is found to have partly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.26 ... Court explained that if an addition towards undisclosed income was made and the AO also seeks to make certain addition in relation to unexplained investment then, it can be treated by the assessee that the unexplained investment is sourced out of the undisclosed income already taxed. The principle which emerges

Deputy Commissioner, Chennai vs. Natarajan, Coimbatore

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2660/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 2661 & 2660 Chny 2024 िनधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2019-20

For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 292CSection 69

assessee did not respond to the show cause notice, an order dated 30.12.2022 was passed making an addition of Rs.6,00,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE. 3. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld.CIT

Saroj Bhonsle Naik, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Ward 22(3)(6), Mumbai/, Maharashtra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4396/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishsaroj Bhonsle Naik Ito, Ward-22(3)(6) 1303, Purna Building 1, Piramal Chamber, Worli Sagar 50, Pochkhanwala Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 012 Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Abipb 9956 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Yash Bhadola Respondent By : Shri Sawpnil Choudhari – Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2014-15. The Basic Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against Ex Parte Disposal Of Her Appeal By The First Appellate Authority Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Yash BhadolaFor Respondent: Shri Sawpnil Choudhari – Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

best of his judgement, invoking the provision of section 144 of the Act. While doing so, he made the following additions: a) Unexplained investment in immovable property of Rs.1,25,16,500/- b) Investment made out of undisclosed sources of Rs.4,83,41,565/- c) Investments made in time deposits

Manisha Devnani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is rejected as non

ITA 344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Varis Isani (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: 19/01/2026
Section 115BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Assessing Officer has made addition u/s. 69 for 3. The Lrd. Assessing Officer has made addition u/s. 69 for unexplained investment of Rs. 10,66,000/ explained investment of Rs. 10,66,000/- during the year under during the year under consideration in the assessment order and charged ... officer has erred in law in applying the 6. The Lrd. Assessing officer has erred in law in applying the provision of 69 for unexplained investment. The A.O. not verified provision of 69 for unexplained investment. The A.O. not verified provision of 69 for unexplained investment. The A.O. not verified

Rajrani Kishanlal Pahwa, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 996/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Year 2008-09 and accordingly no separate addition was made in respect thereof, except interest of Rs.13,794/-. The balance amount was treated as unexplained investment. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 21.03.2016, determining total income

Rajrani Kishanlal Pahwa, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 995/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Year 2008-09 and accordingly no separate addition was made in respect thereof, except interest of Rs.13,794/-. The balance amount was treated as unexplained investment. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 21.03.2016, determining total income

Rajrani Kishanlal Pahwa, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 994/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Year 2008-09 and accordingly no separate addition was made in respect thereof, except interest of Rs.13,794/-. The balance amount was treated as unexplained investment. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 21.03.2016, determining total income

Azizur Rahman Khan, Indore vs. ITO 4(4), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 549/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2012-13 Azizur Rahman Khan, Ito 4(4) 13/1, Nayapura, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Axcpr0947E Assessee By Ms. Shelly Maheshwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

assessee. Ultimately, the AO passed assessment-order dated 05.12.2019 u/s 144 assessing the deposits of Rs. 11,73,090/- in bank a/c as unexplained investment u/s 69. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). However, the CIT(A), NFAC dismissed assessee’s first-appeal in limine

Virendra Kumar Mandot, Sadar Bazar Sailana Ratlam vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO-1, Ratlam

ITA 382/IND/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 44ASection 69Section 69A

which is coming in his cash book and sales made by him therefore Learned NFAC is not correct in making addition u/s 69 as unexplained investment. 5.5 Because Ld. NFAC (A) has erred in confirming the addition u/s 69A without appreciating that provision of Section 69A is not applicable

Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7400/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2015-16 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar, Ito, Ward 22 (2)(1), 1, Vatsala Niwas, Sohan Singh Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chawl, Santacruz-West,- Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai- 400054. Pan – Acxpl4887B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale, (Virtually Present) Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.10.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Under Section 147 Read With Sections 144 & 144B Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.36,00,000/- & Rs.1,12,50,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Investment Under Section 69 Of The Act & Claim Of Long-Term Capital Gain Respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 249Section 250Section 69

with sections 144 and 144B of the Act, has made the additions of Rs.36,00,000/- and Rs.1,12,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and claim of long-term capital gain respectively. 2 Pranay Mohan Lokegaonkar 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, filed

Panchnand Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7383/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Panchnand Enterprises, Deputy Commissioner Of 204, 204, Prince Apartments, Income Tax, Circle 27(2) Vs. Gopal Lane, Ghatkopar- West, It-Office, Vasi Railway Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400086. Station Building, Navi Pan – Aalfp3931E Mumbai -400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shreeraj Abbas Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer, Vide Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2024 Under Section 147 Of The Act, Has Made The Additions Of Rs.60,00,000/- & Rs.6,79,630/- Under Sections 68 & 69 (C) Of The Act, Respectively, As Unexplained Investments.

For Appellant: Shri Shreeraj AbbasFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 147Section 250

made the additions of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.6,79,630/- under Sections 68 and 69 (C) of the Act, respectively, as unexplained investments. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid additions by filing a first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, despite issuing five notices, made no compliance

Kalpana, Tyagi vs. ITO Ward 43(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8768/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2022-23 Kalpana Tyagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pranshu Goel, Chartered Ward-43(1), Accountant, 5A/3A, Civic Centre, Ansari, Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aezpt6863M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

cash amount of Rs.22,10,220/- in respect of payment made in purchasing of Unit No.G-46 from one Shri Anubhav Sharma as her unexplained investment. 3. Faced with this situation, the Tribunal hereby notices from the perusal of the corresponding agreement itself reproduced at pages