← 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

Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/HYD/2023[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

following effect : “26. Section 69 and Section 69A, apart from being close neighbours, do bear resemblance with one another. Section 69 deals with unexplained investment. Section 69A deals with unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles. Section 69A was inserted by Amending Act 5 of 1964 and it came

Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Indore vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 378/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mahendra Kumar Acit, Gupta, N.F.A.C., 110, Mahalaxmi Place, Delhi बनाम/ 28, Old 111A, Vs. Snehaltaganj, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aklpg7601G Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2024

Section 147Section 263Section 69Section 80C

framed assessment vide order dated 31.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 wherein he made a newer addition of Rs. 8,30,189/- on account of unexplained investment in shares u/s 69. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal. But the CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed assessee’s appeal ... paid to the brokers. Following the same tune of PCIT, the AO made addition of Rs. 8,30,189/- u/s 69 as unexplained investment. In coming to such conclusion, the PCIT/AO also noted that the assessee had failed to explain the opening capital

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.6,25,000 as undisclosed business income and Rs.1,99,40,000 as unexplained investments under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheet found at the time ... based on a piece of paper found during the course of search wherein certain figures written, it will not amounts to undisclosed income or unexplained investments, without offering any cogent reason for the same. 5. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed to comprehend the fact that, total sales

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.6,25,000 as undisclosed business income and Rs.1,99,40,000 as unexplained investments under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheet found at the time ... based on a piece of paper found during the course of search wherein certain figures written, it will not amounts to undisclosed income or unexplained investments, without offering any cogent reason for the same. 5. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed to comprehend the fact that, total sales

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.6,25,000 as undisclosed business income and Rs.1,99,40,000 as unexplained investments under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was purely on assumptions and presumptions based on the loose sheet found at the time ... based on a piece of paper found during the course of search wherein certain figures written, it will not amounts to undisclosed income or unexplained investments, without offering any cogent reason for the same. 5. The learned CIT(A)-2, Panaji has failed to comprehend the fact that, total sales

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under appeal. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act for the alleged cash loan advanced by the appellant to M/s. Shivan & Co., relying upon certain loose sheets found ... appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order both on validity of framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act and addition made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Now the contention of the assessee

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under appeal. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act for the alleged cash loan advanced by the appellant to M/s. Shivan & Co., relying upon certain loose sheets found ... appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order both on validity of framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act and addition made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Now the contention of the assessee

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under appeal. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act for the alleged cash loan advanced by the appellant to M/s. Shivan & Co., relying upon certain loose sheets found ... appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order both on validity of framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act and addition made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Now the contention of the assessee

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1063/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under appeal. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act for the alleged cash loan advanced by the appellant to M/s. Shivan & Co., relying upon certain loose sheets found ... appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order both on validity of framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act and addition made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Now the contention of the assessee

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under appeal. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act for the alleged cash loan advanced by the appellant to M/s. Shivan & Co., relying upon certain loose sheets found ... appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order both on validity of framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act and addition made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Now the contention of the assessee

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act for the year under appeal. 4. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition made unexplained investment U/s 69 of the Act for the alleged cash loan advanced by the appellant to M/s. Shivan & Co., relying upon certain loose sheets found ... appeal before ld. CIT(A), challenging the assessment order both on validity of framing assessment u/s 153C of the Act and addition made towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO. Now the contention of the assessee

Sureshchandra Seksaria HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

appeal of the appellant is reproduced hereunder: "I. PURCHASE OF DIAMONDS OF Rs. 13,73,563 TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME CONSIDERING THE PURCHASE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner ... herein referred to as 'CIT(A)'] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,73,563 made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69 as unexplained investment in respect of diamonds purchased from M/S Keshav Impex even though the same were duly recorded as investment in the books of account

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Legal Heir of Late Sh. Surinder Kapur, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 51/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Legal Heir Of Sh. Surinder Kapur, Central Circle-25, No.- 11, The Greens, New Delhi. Rajokari, New Delhi-110 038 Pan Ahhpk9839P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Nehal Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on revised income declared adding thereto Rs. 4,96,424/- on account of unexplained investment. 4. On appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition by observing and recording the following findings: “15. Ground no.9 relates to the addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Laxmi Komatireddy, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 153A

subsequent affidavit of the appellant dated 17-08- 2016 before the DDIT(lnv) and brought to tax to sum of Rs.16 crores as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 7.3.2 The AR strongly contested the said additions and has termed the so called agreements as not real

Anita Chauhan, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 700/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

duty of Rs. 4,37,500/- on registration. The AO considering 50% share of the assessee in property added Rs. 33,43,750/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved against it the assessee preferred appeal to the CIT(A), who affirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved ... result, the Ld. AO has passed ex- parte asset. Order U/S 147/144 of IT Act on 30.11.2018 by making addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 o IT Act, of Rs. 3343750/-(being 50% share of 5 assessee in the acquired said property). Consequently, a huge unwarranted demand

Firozali Taherali Chudiwala, Fatima Nagar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 937/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Virat DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

According to the AO no details of bank statement filed supporting the investments and accordingly made addition on account of unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act, chargeable to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act vide order dated 29-03-2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act. Having

Ritesh Datta, Indore vs. ITO 2(5), Indore

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

ITA 506/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniritesh Datta Ito-2(5) 55, Peer Gali Rajwada Indore Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abxpd5481C Assessee By Ms. Shelly Maheshwari Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

prosecution, and not on merits. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 32,81,499/- as unexplained investment . 5.The appellant Carves to leave add, ammend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing the impugned order ex-parte and confirmed the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment made in purchase of shares in the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that

Abhishek Tejraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleabhishek Tejraj Doshi V. Income Tax Officer 259, 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion Jurisdiction Circle 19(1), Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai, Mumbai Mumbai 400002 Pan: Aegpd9279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anil Sathe Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Taxman 94 (Punjab & Haryana) (MAG.) / [2012] 340 ITR 161 (Punjab & 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana) Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company at rate between

Seema Sinha, Indore vs. ITO-4(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 499/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Seema Sinha Ito-3(4) C-508, Shehnai Residency Bhopal Vs. A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Alups4142A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2024

Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of cash deposited in the bank account by treating it as unexplained investment and unexplained money without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 4.The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal

Kamal Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Indore

ITA 85/IND/2014[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Mar 2024AY 1992-93

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

source of income for making such investments. By now it is an established law that revenue need not locate the source of investment if unexplained investment is detected. Shri Panjwani has clearly admitted making of investment inn bogus names for various years out of income from Panjwani Packagings Limited ... Panjwani Plastics & Polyster Ltd.: 30. In this ground, the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 2,32,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment by assessee in shares of M/s Panjwani Plastics and Polysters Ltd. 31. The AO has dealt this issue in Para 5.4 of assessment-order