“unexplained investment”

Nizar Nooruddin Lalani, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

fully explained by the assessee. Accordingly, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee u/s.69 of the Act on account of unexplained investments. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to delete the addition made u/s.69 of the Act. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee ... ground No.3 raised by the assessee is challenging the addition made in the sum of Rs.51,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 5.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AO vide para

DCIT C.C. 3(4) Central .RG, Mumbai vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit,Cc-3(4) Vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar Room No. 1915, Air India D-1214, Hillside Building Building, Nariman Point, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacpt0654P Revenue .. Assessee

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A), erred in deleting the addition mode after thorough investigation on account of unexplained investment u/s 698 of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.3,61,00,000/-. ITA No.2227/Mum/2021 A.Y.2013-14 2 DCIT,CC-3(4) VS. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakker ... conversation (Rs 5.76 crore) and the amount shown in the books (Rs.2.15 crore) as being advanced to Karan/Shweta Dodani, by treating the same as unexplained investment made by the assessee with Dodanis. For this, reliance has been placed by the AO on the statement recorded during the ITA No.2227/Mum/2021 A.Y.2013-14

The Dy CIT, Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Mehul Johnson, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1647/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mehul Johnson, Dcit Cen. Cir. 6(4), 2808, 28Th Floor, R. No. 1925, 19Th Imperial Tower, M P Floor, Air India बिधम/ Mill’S Compound, Building, Nariman Vs. Tardeo, Point, Mumbai-400 034 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Abbpj3414H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Gautam Jain, Ld. Ar By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 07.07.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)

family members. Therefore, the appellant's claim of the abovementioned two Jewellery items cannot be accepted. Therefore, the addition u/s.69A in respect of unexplained investment in jewellery to 11 I.T.A. No. 1647/Mum/2020 Shri Mehul Johnson the extent of Rs. 1.20.224/- and Rs,1,25,426/- which comes to Rs.2 ... jewellery or ornaments could be seized and where it need not be seized. It does not state that it should not be treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. In this case, the Original Authority has correctly included the excess jewellery other than what has been found in the wealth

The United Church of Northern India Trust Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

need to treat the fresh investment made by the assessee as unexplained ? Hence, there is no scope for making any addition towards unexplained investment. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4 The United Church of Northern India Trust Association 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee

ITO (It)2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Pravin Ambalal Dabi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

knowledge for the securities transactions and investments. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,88,98,220 as unexplained investments being investment where the assessee has offered no explanation under section 69 of the Act. Shri Pravin Ambalal Debi ITA No. 6289/Mum./2019 5. The learned

Shehla Akhtar Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

grounds raised by the assessee are against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming an addition of Rs.37,43,100/- as unexplained investment on account of difference in source of investment while buying new residential property vis-à-vis old residential property. 5. Brief facts of the case ... explained only to the extent of Rs 2,22,56,900/-; the balance of Rs 37,43,100/- stands unexplained. This is added as unexplained investment u/s 69C.” 6. Still not satisfied by the aforesaid part relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 7. Assailing

Akhtar Zain Rangoonwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman ()

grounds raised by the assessee are against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming an addition of Rs.37,43,100/- as unexplained investment on account of difference in source of investment while buying new residential property vis-à-vis old residential property. 5. Brief facts of the case ... explained only to the extent of Rs 2,22,56,900/-; the balance of Rs 37,43,100/- stands unexplained. This is added as unexplained investment u/s 69C.” 6. Still not satisfied by the aforesaid part relief granted by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us. 7. Assailing

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

course of the search proceedings, in their respective return of incomes the above assessee has declared investment in assessment year 2012- 13 against unexplained investment in jewelry, unaccounted cash, cash paid for purchase of immovable property etc. The income declared in respect of said unexplained investment has been duly accepted ... assessed by the Assessing Officer. However , before the Ld. FFA, above assessees claimed that those unexplained investments were out of on money received (Rs. 2,65,00,000/0) on sale of “Matunga Flat” and declared by the other family members namely Sh Abhijit Aversekar(Rs.1

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

course of the search proceedings, in their respective return of incomes the above assessee has declared investment in assessment year 2012- 13 against unexplained investment in jewelry, unaccounted cash, cash paid for purchase of immovable property etc. The income declared in respect of said unexplained investment has been duly accepted ... assessed by the Assessing Officer. However , before the Ld. FFA, above assessees claimed that those unexplained investments were out of on money received (Rs. 2,65,00,000/0) on sale of “Matunga Flat” and declared by the other family members namely Sh Abhijit Aversekar(Rs.1

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

course of the search proceedings, in their respective return of incomes the above assessee has declared investment in assessment year 2012- 13 against unexplained investment in jewelry, unaccounted cash, cash paid for purchase of immovable property etc. The income declared in respect of said unexplained investment has been duly accepted ... assessed by the Assessing Officer. However , before the Ld. FFA, above assessees claimed that those unexplained investments were out of on money received (Rs. 2,65,00,000/0) on sale of “Matunga Flat” and declared by the other family members namely Sh Abhijit Aversekar(Rs.1

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

course of the search proceedings, in their respective return of incomes the above assessee has declared investment in assessment year 2012- 13 against unexplained investment in jewelry, unaccounted cash, cash paid for purchase of immovable property etc. The income declared in respect of said unexplained investment has been duly accepted ... assessed by the Assessing Officer. However , before the Ld. FFA, above assessees claimed that those unexplained investments were out of on money received (Rs. 2,65,00,000/0) on sale of “Matunga Flat” and declared by the other family members namely Sh Abhijit Aversekar(Rs.1

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

course of the search proceedings, in their respective return of incomes the above assessee has declared investment in assessment year 2012- 13 against unexplained investment in jewelry, unaccounted cash, cash paid for purchase of immovable property etc. The income declared in respect of said unexplained investment has been duly accepted ... assessed by the Assessing Officer. However , before the Ld. FFA, above assessees claimed that those unexplained investments were out of on money received (Rs. 2,65,00,000/0) on sale of “Matunga Flat” and declared by the other family members namely Sh Abhijit Aversekar(Rs.1

Shri. Pradip Chopra, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (C) 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Pradip Chopra V. Pr. Cit – (C)-3 19Th Floor, Air India Building 23, Maheshwar Niketan Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aacpc0068J

hence, no addition was made on this count. However, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 1,35,00,000 under section 69B as unexplained investment in A.Y. 2013-14 by passing an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dated 26.12.2016. In rest of the assessment years i.e., from ... assessee was show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1.35 crores should not be added to his total income on account of unexplained investment. The assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2016 submitted his reply which is carefully perused and placed on record, however the same is not acceptable