“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

Mr.V.Churchil, Theni vs. CIT(A)-19, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the individual in ITA Nos

ITA 727/CHNY/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:727 To 730/Chny/2022 "नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Years: 2009 -10 To 2012-13 V. Churchil, Acit, 412, Electronic City-1, Vs. Central Circle -2, Koduvilarpatti, Madurai. Theni – 625 531. [Pan: Afypc-8311-D] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 153ASection 234B

TOTAL Rs. 2,80,93,793/- 100% Rs. 15,50,000/- (7) Unexplained investment: 77. The next addition disputed in the present appeals relates to the standalone addition made in the hands of Company by the Assessing Officer for AY 2008-09 & AY 2009-10 relating to cash deficit quantified ... facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made in the hands of Company on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act to the tune of Rs.2,19,76,920/- and Rs.1,43,75,200/- for the assessment years

Airoplast Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7409/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69

Observing that it was a limitation matter and no further opportunities could be granted, he treated the investment of ₹2,45,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The learned CIT Appeals passed the order ex parte ... assessee in shares of M s JKM Holdings Pvt Ltd can, on the facts recorded by the Assessing Officer, be treated as unexplained investment within the meaning of section 69, merely because the premium per share noted by the Assessing Officer in the case of the investee company from other

Amit Narayan Karkera, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7350/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 69

Appeals) as barred by limitation and has also assailed, on merits, the addition of ₹1,43,49,885/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment under 2 Amit Narayan Karkera section 69 of the Act. Although before the first appellate authority the assessee had also raised grounds challenging ... basis of any adverse finding on the veracity or genuineness of the source of investment. In such circumstances, to sustain the addition mechanically as unexplained investment, without affording an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the source of funds, would be contrary to the settled principles of natural justice

Rajpal Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Bulanshahr

Appeal is allowed

ITA 8637/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 147Section 69

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has rightly restricted the Assessing Officer’s action adding unexplained investment amounting to Rs.10,04,400/- under section 69 of the Act to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs only forming subject matter of adjudication before

Charanjit Kaur, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 8558/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Charanjit Kaur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-Ic, Iind Floor, Tilak Nagar Ward-69(1), S.O. (West Delhi), Tilak New Delhi Nagar, West Delhi, New Delhi Pan: Aegpk6308F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 69

Learned departmental representative vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC has rightly upheld the Assessing Officer’s action making unexplained investment addition of Rs.13.20 Lakhs in assessment order dated 30th March, 2022, vide following detailed lower appellate discussion: “6.1 The brief facts of the case ... absence of any contemporaneous records, makes the explanation implausible. The Assessing Officer has, therefore, rightly invoked the provisions of section 69 and brought the unexplained investment to tax. 4 | P a g e Accordingly, after careful consideration of the material placed on record and in view of the statutory provisions

Lalit Kumar, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6304/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

ignoring the circumstances and available facts, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 3. That the addition of Rs. 27,50,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act is contrary to facts and law, and the authorities did not consider any explanation or material which could justify ... sources, nor considered the nature and background of the appellant. 4. That the authorities wrongly added Rs. 7,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, without adequate opportunity to substantiate the sources and ignoring the real facts of investments made in mutual funds, causing grave prejudice

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Ramesh Kumar Bagri, Faridabad

ITA 524/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: REVENUE BYFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

therefore the same is hereby proposed to be ITA Nos.521 to 524/Del/2025 added back to the total income of assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Ramesh Kumar Bagri, Faridabad

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.521/Del/2025 for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 522/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Akash Ojha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

tune of Rs.42,56,68,844/-, therefore the same is hereby proposed to be added back to the total income of assessee as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. - 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Ramesh Kumar Bagri, Faridabad

ITA 521/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: REVENUE BYFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

making an addition on account of the purported on-money payment. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.25,78,98,000/- made by the AO towards unexplained investment u/s.69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Act solely on the basis of the impugned documents is untenable in law and cannot be sustained. We, therefore ... principles, rightly deleted the addition of Rs.25,78,98,000/- made by the AO u/s.69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Act, on account of alleged unexplained investment. We do not find any justification to depart from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A), which remain uncontroverted by the Revenue with cogent

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gnanaguru Lavanya, Tirupur

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

Z आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Gounder Mariappan, Karur

ITA 1631/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment for AY 2013-14 as the sources for the said advances remained unexplained u/s.69 of the Act. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing ... contention of the appellant is that the AO proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 2 Crore in the hands of the Appellant as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The AO has chosen to make the addition on the basis of the following evidence i.e. Extract

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vaishnava Priya, Chennai

ITA 1629/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Maragathamani Shanmugam, Karur

ITA 1628/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. 11.11.2025 20.01.2026 :-2-:

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

Bhavesh Harjiram Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7462/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 69

stand, however such contentions of assessee were not found favour with the ld. AO, the additions, thus, was made treating the aforesaid amounts as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however

Bhavesh Harjiram Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7461/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 153CSection 69

Bhavesh Harjiram Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7460/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Assessee by

Section 153CSection 69

Diamond Tradecom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5805/MUM/2025[A.Y. 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankardiamond Tradecom V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Private Limited बनाम 12(2)(1), Room No. 147B, Shop No.1, Shiv Ganga Chs Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road, Ltd., Ram Kuwar Thakur Mumbai – 400020, Road, Dahisar (East), Maharashtra Mumbai – 400 068, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccd8131A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

made by the Ld. AO on account of Purchase of Immovable Property u/s 69 of the IT Act., 1961 as unexplained investment. ADDITION OF SHORT TREM CAPITAL GAINS 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition

Arvind Khetaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4747/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar

Section 132Section 153C

assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Since both appeals involve an identical issue relating to alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of a commercial property, with the Arvind Khetaram Purohit Arvind Khetaram Purohit ITA Nos. 4747 & 4746/MUM/2025 consent of both parties, assessment year 2017 consent of both parties ... component in the sale of the shops might not be treated as component in the sale of the shops might not be treated as unexplained investment unexplained investment of assessee. In response, the assessee . In response, the assessee sought cross-examination of sa examination of said Mr. Imran Ansari

Arvind Ketaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4746/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar

Section 132Section 153C