“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

Rasilaben K. Gedia, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT Cen Cir -13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal for AY 201-11 is partly allowed

ITA 569/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.569 To 571/Mum/2014 (A.Ys. 2008-09 To 2010-11) Smt. Rasilaben K. Gedia Vs. The Acit, Flat No. 72, 7Th Floor, Central Circle-13, Shreeji Kutir, Ram Galli, Old Cgo Building, Off S.V. Road, Kandivali M.K. Road, (West), Mumbai – 400067 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Acipg0511G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee has not explained the amount of fixed deposit mentioned on the aforesaid seized paper, therefore, the same was treated as unexplained investment. 16. The assesse filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 17. During the course of appellate ... appeal of the assessee is not pressed therefore the same stand dismissed. Ground No. 1: Addition of Rs.10,52,472/- on account of unexplained investment in fixed deposit: 24. On the same reason as adjudicated as per ground of appeal No. 1 for AY. 2009-10 vide ITA No. 570/Mum/2014

ITO Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeshwari, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 5491/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Sh

Section 143(3)Section 68

Noida has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,22,326/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 68 of the IT Act without considering the facts brought on record. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Bhikhabhai Keshubhai Dhameliya, Surat. Jay Gangeshwar Society, Varachha, Dist – Surat, 395010. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaupd7552N Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca 31/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

income for the year under consideration. You are required to show cause as to why Rs.2,21,82,025/- should not be treated as unexplained investment as per Act and added back to your total income for the year under consideration. 4. In view of above, you are requested

Manojj Ganeshlal Bhatia, Surat vs. ACIT, Cir 1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 494/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.494/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Manojj Ganeshlal Bhatia Income-Tax, Circle-1[3], Room B-703, Opera House Building, Vs. 3Rd No.301, Floor, Anavil Nr. Agarsen Bhavan, City Light Business Centre, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395007 Road, Adajan, Surat-395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpb 9748 E (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mehul K.Patel, Advocate राज" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat [Ld. Cit(A) For Short] Dated 28.08.2019 Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 29.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,97,77,965/- Made On Account Of Profit From Future & Options Ignoring That Assessee Has Failed To Tender Evidence & Explanation In This Regard? 2) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,60,54,528/- Made On Account Of Unexplained Increase In Capital Holding That The Capital Accumulation Is Fully Explained On The Basis Of Capital In The Itr Of A.Y 2011-12 & Accumulated Income In The Roi For A.Y 2012-13 To A.Y 2014-15 Ignoring That Assessee Has Shown Nil Capital Balance In Itr Filed For A.Y 2014-15?

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K.Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

explained. Hence, ld CIT(A), based on the above facts, held that there is no case for sustaining addition of Rs.80,70,224/-, as unexplained investment, therefore ld CIT(A) deleted the same. We have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that conclusion reached

Ramesh Rani Chatwal, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(2), Ghazaibad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ramesh Rani Chatwal, Vs Ito, Kh 144, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Ward-2(2)(2), Uttar Pradesh-201002. Ghaziabad. Pan-Abbpc6571G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 144

erred in law, in facts and circumstances of the case and made an adhoc additions of Rs. 1188000 as income from unexplained investment. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law, in facts and circumstances of case and unjustified, injudicious and wrong in making the addition ... justified in law and in facts, injudicious and wrong in making the addition of the amount as income from unexplained investment in the facts of the case. This ground pertains to wrongful addition of cash in the income assessable to tax. The cash was deposited in lieu of payment

Karamveer Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6088/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Karamveer Singh, Vs Ito, D-28, South Extension Part-1, Ward-1(3), New Delhi-110049. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aonps8861C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 69

facts in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.16,31,750/- by treating it as alleged unexplained investment in property u/s 69 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without providing opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice ... action of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.16,31,750/- by treating it as alleged unexplained investment in property u/s 69, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That having regard to the facts

Kanaka Mahalakshmi Crackers, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 240/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

this case, the Assessing Officer has accepted part of cash deposits as out of her business receipts and part of cash deposits as her unexplained investments, without brought on record any cogent reasons to justify different view taken on cash deposits found in her bank account during the same financial ... considered view that Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) were erred in assessing part of cash deposits as unexplained investments to be taxed u/s.69 of the Act and part of cash deposits as receipts from business liable to be taxed u/s.44AD of the Act. Hence, we direct

Shri Bharatbhai Manubhai Baldha, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 240/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.240/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bharatbhai Manubhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(1), Surat, Aayakar Baldha, 11-12, Vs Bhavan, Nr. Majura Gate, Ishwerkrupa Society, L.H. Opp. New Civil Hospital, Road, Trikamnagar-2, Surat-395001 Varachha, Surat-395006 Pan No. Ahtpb 5940 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

addition under section 68 of the Act of Rs.9,35,200/-, which was deleted by the Tribunal and other addition on account of unexplained investment of Rs.38,64,800/- was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.12.2022 in IT(SS)A No.69/AHD/2017 ... initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on two additions (i) addition under section 68 of Rs.9,35,200 and (ii) unexplained investment u/s 69A of Rs.38,64,800/-. On appeal both the additions were upheld by Ld. CIT(A). However, on further appeal before Tribunal

Measage. Haryana Plast Private Limited, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2v.ShreejiPrints (P.) Ltd, [2021]130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) “Section 69, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Unexplained investments (Unsecured loans) - Assessment year 2013-14 – Assesseecompany had received unsecured loans from two different companies - Commissioner noting that said loans were shown as investment

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai vs. Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 247/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.238/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) M/S Metex Engineers, Vs Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.247/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Ito, Ward-1(2), Bhilai Vs M/S Metex Engineers, Shop No.10-11, Ganesh Complex, Shakti Vihar, Risali Bhilai, Durg Pan No. :Aawfm 8852 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

information and the value shown by assessee at Rs. 26,55,892/- is added at Rs. 47,894/- to the total income as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and subjected to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.” 16.1 LD AR made written submission on ground ... recorded in the books of the assessee with the assessable value for the purpose of payment of custom duty and added the difference as unexplained investment u/s 69, it is not the case of the Learned AO that the assessee had made payment of on money to the foreign supplier

Mesers Metex Engineers, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai

In the result Ground No 8 of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR

Section 68

Sanjaykumar Dhirubhai Hirpara, Khambha vs. AO, ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 260/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapura Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147

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

Dy. CIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. Rekha Khaitan, Delhi

ITA 2831/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

erred on facts and in law in changing the nature of unexplained which was in the form of unexplained investment u/s 69B of the I.T. Act, 1961, to unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5) (a) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous ... cases are entitled to plead that the quantum of excess gold jewellery seized does not warrant inclusion in the income of the assessees as unexplained investment in the light of the Board Instruction No.1916 [F.No,286/63/93-IT (INV. II)], dated 11.5.1994. No doubt, Clause (iii) of the Board Instruction dated

Rekha Kaitan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19, New Delhi

ITA 2520/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Ratroi Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Wazrd-21(1), New Delhi

ITA 7489/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Yadav, Sr.DR

Section 140Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

wrongly enhanced the disallowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.42,10,200/- by invoking the provision of 69 w.r.t. unexplained investment to Rs.3,69,55,260/-. 2. On the facts and circumstance of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No.7489/Del/2018

Om Prakash Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 9 Now Known As CC-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1591/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1591 & 1590/Del/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2006-07) Om Prakash Kukreja Vs. Acit Bgjc & Associates Llp, Central Circle – 9 Raj Tower, G-1, Alakhnanda, New Delhi Community Centre, New Delhi - 110 065 Pan No. Aakpk 8092 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.05.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2012-13. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

erred in law and on facts by confirming addition of Rs. 1,91,80,800/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment in the property U/s 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No.-8 That the Honorable CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts ... confirming the addition to the income of the assessee ny treating investment made in shop at G-7 & G-19 in Vaishali as unexplained investment for AY 2006-07. Ground No.-4 The Honorable CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by disallowing of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1

Om Prakash Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 9 Now Known As CC-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1590/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

Mesers S R Ingosts Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi JainFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

assessee, there is a clear finding, and about which there is no dispute, that the amount added in the income of the assessee as unexplained investment or cash credit in the A.Y. 1993-94 was the same amount which was credited in the books of account of the assessee ... maintained for the financial year 1992-93, the accounting period of which ends on 31st March, 1993 so as to warrant its consideration as unexplained investment or cash credit for its relevant A.Y. 1993-94. It does not require any elaborate argument that a carried forward amount of the previous

Manjit Jitrndrabhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 69A

assessee has taken the following grounds of appeals:- “1. The Learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs.4039800/- as Unexplained Investment. 2. The Learned AO has erred in making Arbitrary and unjust addition of Rs. 632500/- being cash deposit In Bank Account as unexplained money.” Manjit Jitendrabhai Kothari

M/S Nikhil Estate P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT Central Circle (3) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

erred in not treating the income of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- declared during the course of search carried out on 15.12.2016 as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.r.t. 115BBE of the Act. We notice that during the course of search excess stock of gold weighing 6433.812 gms was found amounting ... Through these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the treating of Rs. 1,41,75,568/- declared during search as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and not as a business income. During the course of search, valuation of stock was taken by registered valuer