← 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

Blue Park Sea Foods Private Limited., Bhimavaram vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 515/VIZ/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.515/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Blue Park Sea Foods Private Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist, Central Circle, Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada. Pan: Aaccb 0689 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40Section 68

creditworthiness of the individual investors. Since no satisfactory explanation was provided by the assessee, the Ld. AO considered Rs. 1,69,99,980/- as unexplained investment based on the declaration given by the Managing Director of the company in the statement recorded U/s. 132(4) of the Act. In addition

Sandhya Garg, Jabalpur vs. The ITO, W-2(4), Bhopal

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

ITA 178/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisandhya Garg Ito War,2(4) 30, Subhash Grih Nirman Bhopal Society, Priydarshini Colony Vs. Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agtpg7994G Assessee By Shri Manoj Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

Section 54FSection 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

The DCIT(Central)-I, Bhopal vs. M/S. Shriniwas Education Society, Bhopal

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 13/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A Nos.02 & 13/Ind/2017(Ays: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner Of Shriniwas Education बनाम/ Income-Tax, Society, Vs. (Central)-I, E-5, 3Rd Floor, Bhopal Tawa Complex, Bittan Market, Bhopal (Pan:Aaaas 7060 B) (Appellant/Revenue) (Respondent/Assessee)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

made by AO u/s 69B on account of unexplained investments in buildings. 18. Ld. AR carried us to Para No. 13 to 15 where the AO has made these additions. It is submitted by Ld. AR that the AO has made these additions by making a reference dated

Sandeep Kherada, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)
Section 131Section 144

assessee has issued cheque of Rs. 8,20,000/- from bank a/c. Therefore, balance of Rs. 11,80,000/- is treated as unexplained investment in agriculture land and added to the total income of the assessee. 3.6 The assessee was asked to explain source of cash deposit ... assessee has issued cheque of Rs. 8,20,000/- from bank a/c. Therefore, balance of Rs. 11,80,000/- was treated as unexplained investment in agriculture land and added to the total income of the assessee. The addition was done on estimate basis in view of the limited facts

City Petroleums, Sunam vs. ACIT, C.C., Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 71/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

explanation regarding the source of money used for making advances to the farmers amounting to Rs. 29,72,945/-which was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and accordingly, the income of Rs. 38,50,000/- was brought to tax as per the provisions of Section

Suryakant Baburao Swami, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

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

ITA 844/PUN/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Suryakant Baburao Swami, Ito, Ward-1(5), Behind Jhulelal Temple Naryan Income Tax Bhavan, Near Nagar, Latur-413-512. Vs. Railway Station, Gandhi Chowk, Nanded Road, Latur-431512 Pan No. Bynps 1468 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya (Through
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69

nature and source of the cash deposits in his bank account and also with regard to bank interest, the AO treated same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of het I.T.Act, 1961 and completed the assessment and assessed the total income at Rs. 28,40,750/-. Hence, the assesse

Chetan Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 576/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Chetan Agarwal, Vs. The Acit, H.No.3-5-141/3/3, Central Circle – 1(1), Shanti Villa, Street No.3, Hyderabad. Eden Garden, Ramkote, Telangana – 500001. Pan : Armpa4651L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 144Section 69Section 69A

erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the A.O. by treating the excess stock found as unexplained investment u/s 69 even though an explanation with all evidences has been submitted by the assessee/appellant. 4. For these and other reasons which may be adduced ... Rs.2,11,82,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and the excess stock found of Rs.2,34,79,050/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, thereby assessing the total income of the appellant at 4,69,74,877/- by the Assessing Officer and passed assessment

Budumuru Sandeep Kumar, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.282/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Budumuru Sandeep Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Near Ramabhajana Ward-1 Rangaraya Puram Vizianagaram Bobbili, Vizianagaram [Pan : Bgtpb5972Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 69A

F.Y.2016-17, out of which Rs.5,30,600/- was made in cash. The AO completed the assessment and made addition of Rs.12,45,450/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act, taxed @60% u/s 115BBE of the Act and passed order dated 30.12.2019, as the assessee failed to furnish ... assessee has not filed petition under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules to admit the additional evidence. He submitted that there is no unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act and 4 I.T.A. No.282/Viz/2023, A.Y.2017-18 Budumuru Sandeep Kumar, Vizianagaram thus levying of tax u/s 115BBE does not arise

Lakshmaiah Gunuputi, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT Central Circle-2, Rajahmundary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 55/VIZ/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27/12/2019 and passed the assessment order wherein the Ld. AO made certain additions viz., (i) Unexplained investment in personal jewellery (Gold jewellery Rs.23,55,600 + Rs. 1,66,400/- Silver Jewellery) aggregating to Rs. 25,22,000/- (ii) Deficit cash balance ... made by the assessee and granted part relief to the assessee with respect to the addition of Rs. 25,22,000/- on account of unexplained investments in personal jewellery and confirmed the addition of deficit cash amounting to Rs. 78,163/- made U/s. 69 r.w.s 115BBE

Ram Sahay, Sawaimadhopur vs. ITO Ward-1, Sawai Madhopur

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

ITA 754/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tatiwala (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

only ignoring the replies, but also passed hasty order on 20.12.2019, without rebutting the contentions of the assesseeand making addition for Rs. 29562900/- as unexplained investment in land without any reason or basis. In the facts and circumstances of the appellant, the AO erred in law as well as facts

Mrs. Parvati Bandi, Iikal vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Koppal

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

ITA 1150/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sathish Patil, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel V, JCIT (DR)
Section 68Section 69

dates. The assessee filed submission and written synopsis which was considered by the AO and AO made addition u/s 69 of the Act for unexplained investment u/s 69 of Rs.56,90,000/-, unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.27,50,000/- and unexplained time deposit

Vinayagam Chettiar Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1425/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1425/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri. Vinayagam Chettiar The Income Tax Officer, Sekar, V. Non Corporate Ward -19(3), No. 87A, Wanaparthy Block, Market Lane, No. 121, M G Road, Alandur, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 016. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aajps-6500-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 69

appellant could not file any details, the Assessing Officer made additions of Rs. 25,62,500/- towards cash deposits during demonetization period as unexplained investment u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but neither appeared nor filed

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

following additions:- Sl No. Particulars Amount (in Rs.) (a) Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on 1,53,390 commission expenses (b) Unexplained investment in capital work in 4,70,961 progress 3 M/s. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Capital expenditure claimed as Revenue 3,71,430 expenses (d) Foreign travelling ... sustaining the penalty in relation to the aforesaid disallowance. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. (b) Penalty levied in relation to unexplained investment in capital work in progress (c) Penalty levied in relation to capital expenditure claimed as Revenue expenses 8. During the assessment proceedings, from the response

Jitesh Jitendra Sakhidas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30 (1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3112/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

dated 17.08.2023 for the AY 2012- 13. The assessee raised the following grounds: 1. The Addition of Rs.67,00,000/- toward unexplained Investment u/s.69B of the Act on a ground that inspite of numerous opportunities given, the appellant had neither complied to nor attended in response to any of these ... statement of the Director whereby the AO made an addition of Rs. 67,00,000/- under section 69B of the Act as unexplained investments. The relevant findings of the AO in this regard are extracted below: “A. The information received from the ITO-3(3)(1)is not general

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Konark Infrastructure Limited, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3088/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3025/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 Ground Floor, Sapna 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near 16Z, Waghle Estate, Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar Thane (W) 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck6745L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3088/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure Ltd 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Ground Floor, Sapna Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane Talkies, Konark Plaza, (W) Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck6745L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

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. 57. The principle which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

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

ITA 3061/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane West vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

ITA 3060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

ITA 3059/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane vs. Konark Infrastructure (Water Supply-Umc)(Jv), Ulhasnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed, for AYs

ITA 3058/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3021, 3022, 3023 & 3024/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 (Water Supply-Umc) (J/V) 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, 16Z, Waghle Estate, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Thane (W) Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3058, 3061, 3060 & 3059/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, (Water Supply-Umc) Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane (J/V) (W) 1St Floor, Sapna Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaak9702G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06 & 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench All These Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune, All Dated 30-06- 2023 For Ays 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & Ay 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals Have Been Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Raised Similar Arguments On These A.Ys. 2013-14 To 2015-16 Konark Infrastructure., Issues. Accordingly, We Dispose Off All These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 245C(1)Section 245D(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर

Konark Infrastructure Ltd, Ulhasnagar vs. DCIT Central Circle - 4, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3025/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3025/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Konark Infrastructure Ltd बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle – 4 Ground Floor, Sapna 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Vs. Talkies, Konark Plaza, Near 16Z, Waghle Estate, Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar Thane (W) 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck6745L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3088/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit, Central Circle – 4 बिधम/ Konark Infrastructure Ltd 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Ground Floor, Sapna Vs. 16Z, Waghle Estate, Thane Talkies, Konark Plaza, (W) Near Sapna Garden, Ulhasnagar 42100. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck6745L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Biswanant Das, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanant Das, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

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. 57. The principle which