unexplained investment — 5,821 case laws

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 950/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 949/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 945/JPR/2015[211-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 944/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 935/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 934/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 933/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ITA 928/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ITA 927/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 912/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 911/JPR/2015[20010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 910/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 909/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 908/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 907/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

allow such amounts for which the assessee has been able to prove satisfactorily the investment or to give him the opportunity to prove such unexplained investments. The observations of the Tribunal makes it clear that the Tribunal itself was in doubt about the correctness of its own conclusion when ... mean that the entire investments have to be considered as explained. Even lapse of time or inability of the assessee would not make the unexplained investment an explained one. It is each and individual entry on which the mind has to be applied by the taxing authority when an explanation

Rakesh Kumar Soni, Katni vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 71/JAB/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethre, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 147

considered as the income and pertaining to the material found i.e. page of LP -1. The ld. CIT(A) held that the amount represent unexplained investment and affirmed order of the Assessing Officer. 3 Rakesh Kumar Soni 5. Before us, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3172/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3172/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Balaji Lifestyle बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-7(1) Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 118/120, Ashoka House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai- 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb0234H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Dated 02.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature So Does Not Require Any Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 288ASection 69B

under: - Description Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) Income from business 5,45,372/- Add: Expenses disallowed as discussed above 48,028/- Add: Unexplained investments u/s 69B of the Act as 13,65,92,256/- discussed above Add: Undisclosed investments

Kamlesh Bhalia, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1187/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

notices issued under section 148 and 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the entire investment of Rs.1,46,00,000/- as unexplained investment and added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority. 4. Before the first

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Regulated Market Committee, Attabira

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 285/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.285/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ito, Bargarh Vs Regulated Market Committee, Attabira, Attabira, Bargarh-768027 Pan No. :Aacar 4813 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sudam Panigrahi, Accountant Of Assessee-Committee राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.07.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1054708362(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Shri Sudam Panigrahi, Accountant Of The Assessee-Committee Submitted An Adjournment Application, Which Was Taken Back By Him. Subsequently, An Adjournment Application From The Secretary Of The Assessee Through Post Addressing To The Members, Itat Cuttack, Was Received After The Order Was Pronounced In The Open Court And, Thus, The Same Is Not Taken Into Consideration. 3. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Cit-Dr That The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Came To Be Completed U/S.147 R.W.S144

For Appellant: Shri Sudam Panigrahi, Accountant of assessee-committeeFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 147

completed u/s.147 r.w.s144 2 r.w.s144B of the Act on 01.03.2023, wherein the AO had made addition representing the fresh time deposit as unexplained investment. Further the interest received on the said fresh time deposit was also treated as unexplained money. It was submitted that addition has been made

Shivani Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Shivani Gupta, Rag & Versus Income-Tax Officer, Associates, Chartered Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad. Accountants, 209, Jagdamba Tower, 13 Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Pan: Bkgps1460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Versus Income-Tax Officer, Shivani Gupta, Rag & Associates, Chartered Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad. Accountants, 209, Jagdamba Tower, 13 Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raghuvendra, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2023 Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Raghuvendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 147

assessee to explain the source of investment in property and the credit entries appearing in the bank account, the Assessing Officer treated them as unexplained investment and added back to the income of the assessee. Though, the assessee contested the aforesaid addition before the first appellate authority, however, the addition

“unexplained investment”

Leading authorities on unexplained investment

Judgments citing unexplained investment

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Vasu Dev Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

Rakesh Kumar Soni, Katni vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Jabalpur

Balalji Lifestyle Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Kamlesh Bhalia, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department vs. Regulated Market Committee, Attabira

Shivani Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad