← All Phrases

“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

Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs. Deepak Kumar, Ludhiana

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 721/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: it is finally disposed off."

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 251Section 69

Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the addition of Rs. 1,52,00,0001 - made by the AO being unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee had failed to furnish satisfactory explanation on this issue during the course ... appreciate the fact that addition of Rs.1,52,00,000/- made by the A.O. on account of variation in respect of issue of unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE as the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment in purchase of immovable property

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Jaswinder Kaur Grewal, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 69B

justified to delete the addition of Rs. 77,27,500/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investment for purchase of SCO on the basis of logical Et rational extrapolation based on evidences? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the valuation report ... lacs as in the case of assessee. Accordingly, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had made an "unexplained investment" of Rs. 77,27,500/ (Rs.99,27,500 minus 22,00,000) u/s 69B r.w. the provisions of section 115BBE was also made available. 4. Against

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Falguni Suryakant Thakar, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1563/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69

cause notice dated 24-12-2021 and completed exparte assessment order making addition of Rs. 4 crores under section 69 of the Act being unexplained investment made by the assessee for the Asst. Year 2009-10. The assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings

Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Mandya Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 & Tps Mandya, Mandya

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

ITA 1618/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 156Section 234ASection 249Section 271ASection 69

responded to the said notice and therefore the AO based on the information available with him, had treated the purchase of a house as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the AO had made an addition u/s. 69A of the Act in respect of the cash deposits made

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5684/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 69

asked to show cause as to why the payment made in cash for the purchase of the shops should not be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice, the assessee was asked to show cause ... assessment year 2017-18, Rs.14,29,725/- for the assessment year 2018-19 and Rs.4,23,200/- for the assessment year 2019-20, as unexplained investment and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide common

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 69

asked to show cause as to why the payment made in cash for the purchase of the shops should not be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice, the assessee was asked to show cause ... assessment year 2017-18, Rs.14,29,725/- for the assessment year 2018-19 and Rs.4,23,200/- for the assessment year 2019-20, as unexplained investment and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide common

Jayantilal Purohit, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5682/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 69

asked to show cause as to why the payment made in cash for the purchase of the shops should not be treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Since the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice, the assessee was asked to show cause ... assessment year 2017-18, Rs.14,29,725/- for the assessment year 2018-19 and Rs.4,23,200/- for the assessment year 2019-20, as unexplained investment and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide common impugned

Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Mulund vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4981/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Ito Ward 27 (1) (1), 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Tower 6, Vashi Station Ambedkar, Road Opp. Balaji Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai – Temple, Mulund West, Mumbai 400703. – 400080. Pan – Agvps 7279 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna, Ca (Virtually Appear) Revenue By : Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 281 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under :- Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay 1, Mrs. Deepali Vikki Ajmera, Age About 45 Years, Residing At 5Th Floor, Prem Ratna Building, Ambedkar Road, Opp Balaji Temple

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, SR. D.R
Section 250

total investment in the aforesaid property and receipts u/s 56(2)(x) work out to Rs. 1,04,41,440/- [Rs. 20,50,325/- (unexplained investment) + 8,85,400 (stamp duty paid) + 75,05,715 (difference between stamp value & purchase value)] as per Agreement of sale submitted by the Assessee ... Assessee and consequently added to the total income of the Assessee. 9.2 Further, the AO also treated the amount of Rs.20,50,325/- as unexplained investment and held the amount of Rs.6,83,442/- being 1/3rd, in the hands of the Assessee and consequently, also made the addition of said

Shri Sanjay Haresh Mulchandani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 4751/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Haresh The Income Tax Officer, Mulchandani Ward, 19 (3) (1), 4-C Ajanta Apartments, M L Vs. Piramal Chamber, Dhanukar Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400013. Mumbai – 40026 Pan – Aadpm 3393 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin Khinchi, Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Along With His Uncle Had Purchased A Flat In Iscon Platinum, Ahmedabad On A Consideration Of Rs. 59,30,000/- Through Cheques. Subsequently, Search Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Conducted By The Investigation Wing, In The Case Of Jp Iscon

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia & Nitin KhinchiFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

reproduction of the document found in the search. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to make made addition of Rs. 19,65,150/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. While making the addition, the Ld. Assessing Officer made the following observations: "In response to above notices, the assessee ... cash quantum paid by the assessee. In absence of any corroborative evidence submitted by the assessee, the cash payment of Rs.1965150/- is treated as unexplained investment of the assessee and added to the total income u/s. 69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-, Cuddalore vs. M. Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoyilure

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 587/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

books and the sources for the same stood unexplained. Therefore, the said investment has to :-5-: I.T.A. Nos:587 & 1539/Chny/2025 be treated as unexplained investment in purchase of gold u/s.69B of the Act and the action of the AO to this extent is modified, i.e., to be taxed u/s.69B instead ... Rs.1,874/- per gram, based on the purchases made during the impugned year and treating the difference in the value per gram as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee, being in its first year of business, had the statutory right u/s.145

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 8. That the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.3 ... doing so, the AO made the following additions:- i. Treated the fixed deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- with HDFC Bank as unexplained investment and made an addition u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act; ii. | Treated the purchase of motor vehicle amounting to Rs.65,34,653/- as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s

Shanmugasudaram, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2833/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

Unit of NFAC, Delhi dated 23.03.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.1,15,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act by arriving total income of Rs.1,21,32,030/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal

M Ramesh Jewellers, Tirukoilur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the cross- appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1539/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69BSection 69C

books and the sources for the same stood unexplained. Therefore, the said investment has to :-5-: I.T.A. Nos:587 & 1539/Chny/2025 be treated as unexplained investment in purchase of gold u/s.69B of the Act and the action of the AO to this extent is modified, i.e., to be taxed u/s.69B instead ... Rs.1,874/- per gram, based on the purchases made during the impugned year and treating the difference in the value per gram as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee, being in its first year of business, had the statutory right u/s.145

ACIT, Circle-20(1), Mumbai vs. Jayesh Umakant Manania, Mumbai

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

ITA 6927/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69

total income at Rs.86,30,172/-, after making an addition of Rs.70,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment, being the alleged cash payment attributable to the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ... erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.70,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant prays that the total tax effect is Rs.21,63,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of the assessee, which

Jigna Kundan Bhatt, Virar vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5265/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

with non-seizure of jewellery and does not dispense with the requirement of explaining the source of acquisition. Accordingly, the jewellery was treated as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act. 6. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 1,60,000/- under Chapter ... justified and is required to be deleted. 2. The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.57,83,972/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961, on account of family jewellery of 1699.446 gms found in the course of search action u/s 132, ignoring

Meena Suresh Raithatha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4813/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak KanabarFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 65BSection 69

r.w.s. 144B was completed on 27.03.2024, with an addition of Rs. 71,27,250/- u/s 69 of the Act, treating it as unexplained investment. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but was unable to convince him, thus, the appeal ... income. 3.3 In view of the above factual discussion and legal matrix of the case, addition of Rs.71,27,250/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 made by the AO is upheld, hence confirmed. Thus, the ground of appeal no. 1 is dismissed. 5. To challenge the above decision

Ratori Maa Trading P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4485/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandraratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs Ito M-98, 2Nd Floor, Jagat Ward -21(1) Rampark, Laxmi Nagar, New C. R. Building, New Delhi Delhipan: Aaecr0612A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 75,75,813/- on account of unexplained investment for peak investment in bank accounts. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 15/12/2017, Assessee preferred an appeal before ... Trading P. Ltd. Vs. ITO 6. Ground No. 6 to 12 are directed against addition of Rs 75,75,813/- on account of unexplained investment for Peak Balance in bank account. 6.1. I have carefully considered the assessment order and written submission filed by the Ld. AR The AO made

V Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 744/CHNY/2005[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

salary / managerial remuneration from page 10 to page 15 of the appellate order / impugned order. 18. With regard to the third addition of unexplained investment / expenditure, the same was also deleted by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in view of the same being :-9-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 ... read as follows : "Question No. 1: Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,14,950 made on account of unexplained investment in gold ? Question No. 2: Whether in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting

V Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle III(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for the A

ITA 2197/CHNY/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 132Section 148Section 15Section 158BSection 17(1)(iv)

salary / managerial remuneration from page 10 to page 15 of the appellate order / impugned order. 18. With regard to the third addition of unexplained investment / expenditure, the same was also deleted by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in view of the same being :-9-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 ... read as follows : "Question No. 1: Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,14,950 made on account of unexplained investment in gold ? Question No. 2: Whether in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting

Farooqi Gulamsamdani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.814/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Farooqi Gulam Samdani, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aispg5022C (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-AR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69

seized material, made addition of Rs.1.50 Crores being 50% share of the assessee towards sale consideration paid in cash for purchase of property as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before ... additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the incriminating material found during search and consideration paid in ITA No.814/Hyd/2025 28 cash as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act, but in our considered opinion, the issue becomes academic in nature because the assessee has got relief on legal grounds