unexplained investment — 5,821 case laws

Bhupendrakumar Balvantlal Gandhi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.687/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhupendrakumar Balvantlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Gandhi 1(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 36 Jai Ambe Society, B/H Arjun Majura Gatre, Surat-395001 Complex, Bhatar Road, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agapg 3261 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/12/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 11.08.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 18.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Reopening Assessment U/S 147 Of Ethe Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The It Act 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer By Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.13,79,000/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

books of account, bill /vouchers, statement of share transaction etc., therefore assessing officer made addition to the tune of Rs.11,35,468/-, as unexplained investment and brought to tax u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by these two additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter

Gagjibhai Jivabhai Bharwad, Surat vs. ITO, Adajan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.466/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Gagjibhai Jivabhai Bharwad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, 452.453 Avadh Vice-Roy Bardoli Vs. Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat- 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajypb 8766 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

assessee are as follows: “1. That, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming addition u/s 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That ... source of above investment of Rs.9,34,100/- (Rs.8,90,400 + Rs.43,700) remained ITA.466/SRT/2023 AY.11-12 Gagjibhai J Bharwad unexplained and treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and same was added by Assessing Officer to the income of assessee for the year under consideration. 5. Aggrieved

Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Flagship Housing Development P. Ltd.( Formerly Known As M/S. Absolute Building Company Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4642/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

investment which were made out of books of account. The source of funds in such investment remains unexplained and, requires to be taxed as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I. T. Act,1961. 5. Thus, the main allegation is that, out of 15 parties, 8 of the companies

Vishwa Mittal Bahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1690/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble Vice-A N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Kohli

Section 1Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54ESection 55Section 69A

acquisition of property acquired before 01/04/2001 shall be taken as FMV as on 01/04/2001. (2) (i) That an addition of Rs.50,00,000/ as unexplained investment u/s 69A is not justified where the bank statement on record proves that the total investment in NHAI bonds & fixed deposits made ... 1690/Del/2022 SIT as per CBS records. Thus the ld. Counsel submits that the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.50,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act is not justified since the bank statement proves that the total investment in NHAI bonds and fixed deposits

Nivesh Group, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of revenue] 11 Nivesh Group 4. [2008] 169 Taxman 117 (Punjab & Haryana)-Mahavir Prasad vs. Income- tax Officer- Unexplained investments - Assessment year 1997-98 - Assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with a firm and source of such deposit was not verifiable

Tin Time Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2810/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ms Padmavathy Stin Time Consultancy Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1) Pvt Ltd., (Successor Of 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Avdharna Trading Pvt Kalyan West, Ltd)302,Cfc Bldg No. 1, Maharashtra-421301. 3Rd Floor, Asmeeta Textile Park, Addl. Kalyan Bhiwandi Industrial Area, Village Kon, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421311. Pan/Gir No. : Aaica4811G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Gohil.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 69A

unsecured loans U/sec68 of the Act of Rs.1,15,06,840/-(ii) unexplained sundry creditors of Rs.1,55,27,460/- and (iii) unexplained investments U/sec69A of the Act of Rs.2,68,46,100/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.5,38,58,435/- and passed the order

Vivek Lawrence, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 972/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvivek Lawrence Principal Cit Geo Riverside (Central), Near St. Alosius School Kochi Vs. Palluruthy, Kochi 682006 [Pan:Abrpl4407E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

reading of his order shows, was, on the contrary, of the clear view that the gold jewellery is to be assessed as income as unexplained investment. It is only in view of BI 1916, which rather requires him to, despite non- seizure, consider the jewellery found in search for assessment ... clear that the same has nevertheless to be explained. Per contra, to the extent not, it would stand to be assessed as income as unexplained investment u/s. 69/69B of the Act. Could possibly, one may ask, the said provisions be construed as inapplicable to gold jewellery, even if unexplained

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Donar, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 341/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Donar, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 340/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 339/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 338/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 337/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Kurud, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 336/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 335/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 334/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 333/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 332/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kodebod, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 331/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kodebod, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 330/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhendri, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee society in ITA No

ITA 329/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saty

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned

“unexplained investment”

Leading authorities on unexplained investment

Judgments citing unexplained investment

Bhupendrakumar Balvantlal Gandhi, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

Gagjibhai Jivabhai Bharwad, Surat vs. ITO, Adajan

Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Flagship Housing Development P. Ltd.( Formerly Known As M/S. Absolute Building Company Private Limited, Mumbai

Vishwa Mittal Bahal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

Nivesh Group, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-15, Delhi

Tin Time Consultancy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 (1), Mumbai

Vivek Lawrence, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -1, Kochi

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Donar, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Donar, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhakhara, Kurud, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Doma, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kodebod, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kodebod, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Bhendri, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari