“unexplained investment”

Jitendra Kumar Ray, Lalganj, Hajipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Vaishali, Hajipur

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

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. At the outset of hearing, we noted that the appeal filed by the assessee is delay by 256 days. In this regard, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2026 stating the reasons for not filing appeal within the due date which is as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961 against the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to

justice. 5.) For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,29,73,990/- under cash deposit unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s.115BBE of I. T. Act' 1961. which is arbitrary and unjustified. 6) For that the entire assessment order is bad both ... furnished therefore, the source of cash deposits were remained unexplained and relying on various judgments, the Assessing Officer made the aforesaid cash deposits as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act and show cause notice was also issued to the assessee but in reply of the show cause notice

Darasingh Patel, Indore vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

grossly erred to make an addition of Rs. 37,95,000/-U/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment, when in fact it was submitted before the Ld. A.O. that appellant has purchased an immovable property only to the tune

Mukesh Jain, Indore vs. The ACIT (Central)-2, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

made to the total income of the appellant on account of alleged unexplained cash loan by treating it as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in case of non-abate assessment and that too in absence of any incriminating documents found and seized during the course of search ... addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-made to the total income of the appellant on account of alleged cash loan by treating it as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken

Mukesh Jain, Indore vs. The ACIT (Central)-2, Indore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani1. Ι.Τ.Α. No.927/Ind/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. Ι.Τ.Α. No.928/Ind/2024 – Asst. Year 2014-15 Mukesh Jain C/O. S.V. Agrawal & Associates Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower Old Palasia 452 001 (Μ.Ρ.) Pan No. Abfpj 3732 L (Appellant) The Acit (Central)-2, Indore 452 001 (Respondent) Assessee By : Revenue By Ca Sh. S.N. Agrawal Sh. Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 Order Per Siddhartha Nautiyal - Jm: Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Cit(A)] Dated 23/10/2024 Passed For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Common Facts & Issues For Consideration Are Involved For Both The Years Under Consideration Before Us, These Appeals Are Being Taken Up Together (Grounds Extracted From Ay 2014- 15).

made to the total income of the appellant on account of alleged unexplained cash loan by treating it as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in case of non-abate assessment and that too in absence of any incriminating documents found and seized during the course of search ... addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-made to the total income of the appellant on account of alleged cash loan by treating it as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken