← 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

Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for both the assessment years

ITA 550/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.549 & 550/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Raja Reddy Nalla, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. Warangal. Pan : Aaxpn3602Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 154Section 69

said source. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that although the A.O. had assessed income of the assessee u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment, but failed to compute tax by applying special rate of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, the present order passed ... that the A.O. has rightly assessed the income offered by the assessee from unexplained source for purchase of land u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment, however, failed to compute the tax by applying special rate of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. has rightly

Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for both the assessment years

ITA 549/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.549 & 550/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Shri Raja Reddy Nalla, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle 1(3), Hyderabad. Warangal. Pan : Aaxpn3602Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Poorna Chander Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 154Section 69

said source. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that although the A.O. had assessed income of the assessee u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment, but failed to compute tax by applying special rate of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, the present order passed ... that the A.O. has rightly assessed the income offered by the assessee from unexplained source for purchase of land u/s.69 of the Act as unexplained investment, however, failed to compute the tax by applying special rate of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. has rightly

Srikanth Kakati, Kothagudem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Kothagudem

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1341/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Srikanth Kakati, The Income Tax Officer, Kothagudem–507 Ward-1, Vs. 101. Khammam. Kothagudem. Telangana. Pin –507 101. Pan Csupk1347N Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ms Ml Niharika, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: MS ML Niharika, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. AR
Section 144BSection 148Section 69Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT-A) has erred in confirming the additions of Rs.13,00,000 u/s 69 as unexplained investments and Rs. 14,15,000/-u/s 69A unexplained money and Rs 2,84,093 under income from other sources by the learned Assessing Officer ... Rs.13,00,000/-representing time deposits made out of the appellant's explained savings of Rs. 13,00,000/-, which does not constitute unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,84,093/- as "income from other

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6571/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under Section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under Section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6569/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under Section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under Section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Manish Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6568/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.5488/Mum/2025
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act with the additions under section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6480/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Centra Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 6479/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Dinesh Megharam Choudhary, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle, Mumbai

ITA 6478/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Imran Dawood Vehvaria, Mumbai vs. Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5773/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Imran Dawood Vehvaria, Ward 24(2)(1), D 701 Remibiz Court, Off Veera Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Vs. Road, Andheri, West Mumbai, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai – 400053. Pan – Aatpv9817B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025, 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. 2016-17. 2. On The Previous Date Of Hearing On 22.12.2025, None Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee & Therefore, The Case Was Adjourned To Today I.E. 24.12.2025 & Notice Was Directed To Be Served Through E-Mail & Telephonically & Therefore The Assessee Served Accordingly But Still The Assessee Neither Appeared Nor Filed Any Adjournment Application, Thus, We Are Constrained To Decide This Appeal As Ex-Parte. 2 Imran Dawood Vehvaria

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Section 147Section 250

following additions: (i) Rs.2,32,48,673/- being variation in respect of unexplained expenditure; (ii) Rs. 84,30,000/- being variation in respect of unexplained investment; (iii) Rs.13,73,530/- being variation in respect of unexplained expenditure and (iv) Rs.3,05,462/- being variation in respect of undisclosed rental income

Darpan Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5489/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Darpan Hiralal Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5488/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Revenue-For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

explain as to why cash payments as per the information found during the search should not be added in the hands of assessee as unexplained investments. The assessee denied before the AO to have made such cash payments; however, such submissions of assessee was not found convincing ... accordingly the assessment was completed under Section 153C r.w.s.143(3) of the Act with the additions under Section 69 on account of unexplained investment in the hands of assessee for the aforesaid alleged cash payments admitted to be received by the builder from the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid

Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offcier 24(1)(1), Piramal Chamber

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 3790/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi Ito-24(1)(1) E-651, B Wing, 6Th Floor Room No. 702 New Chandra Chsl, Veera Desai Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers Andheri West Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amypk5431D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld Dr Date Of Hearing : 06 /11/2025 Date Of : 24/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, LdFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 68Section 69Section 80C

instant case, the Assessing Officer vide original assessment order dated 30.12.2011 under section 144 of the Act, has made following additions: - i) Unexplained investment under section 69 for purchase of immovable property of Rs. 49,76,580/-. ii) Deduction of Rs.1,02,316/- under section ... immovable property and source of such deposit, the said amounts of Rs. 49,76,580/- and Rs. 4,06,663/- are treated as unexplained investment and unexplained cash credit respectively under section 68 and 69 of the Act. 3 Faisal Abdul Majeed Kazi 6. The assessee being aggrieved, challenged

Swaran Singh S/O Sh Darbara Singh, Haryana vs. Gandesh Chander Gupta ITO Ward 1 (5) Shamli (Up), Uttarpardesh

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

ITA 7148/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7148/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13) Swaran Singh, S/O Darbara Singh, H No. 438, Gali No. 9, Uttar Nagar, Karnal, Haryana 132001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Ihyps-1069-E बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), ...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Shamli, Uttar Pradesh 247776 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : None प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 05.07.2024, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 403 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 403 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)

comply with statutory notices, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte and added Rs. 13,16,500/- to the income of the assessee as unexplained investment. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish any documentary

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

made by assessee, a US resident involved in retail business in USA, with Canara Bank and addition was made under section 698 based on unexplained investment in time deposits - Commissioner (Appeals) carried out an inquiry in DCIT vs. M/s Rudra Buildwell Homes Private Limited & Ors. matter by exercising his powers

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), Delhi

ITA 2759/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Lakhawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Pradip Naik, Goa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 43, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1497/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pradip Naik Vs Ito Bungalow No.25, International Goa Housing Board, Taxation-2(2)(2) Behind Sai Service Station, New Delhi Bardex, North Goa-403521 Pan-Afvpn7030H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Through Vc) & Ms. Sakshi Goyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-43, [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 10054/2020-21 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 17.12.2019 U/S 144(1)/147 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Act. The Ao Had Information In His Possession That Assessee Had Made Deposits Of Inr 3,75,00,000/- In The Bank Account But Had Not Filed The Return Of Income Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 28.03.2019. Thereafter, Since The Assessee Had Not Participated In The Proceedings Nor Made Any Compliance, Ao Has Held That Investments Made In Mutual Funds Totaling To Inr 3,25,00,000/-, Source Of Which Remained Unexplained & Accordingly, Made The Addition Of Such Amount Made U/S 69B Of The Act.

Section 144Section 144(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69B

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- as unexplained investments under section 69B of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Kiran Amishkumar Thakrar, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 247/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115bSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234aSection 27Section 270aSection 272a(1)(d)

officer in respect of made the addition on account of on-money payment for purchase of flat of rs.26,72,880/- is treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 rws 115bbe of the i t act and added to the total income of rs.26,72,880/- it is totally wrong, unwarranted, unjustified

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Royal Developers, Nr. Ip Mission School, Muglisa

ITA 860/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mr. Suresh K KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹1,07,38,774/- being unexplained investment as made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act despite of the fact that the Assessing Officer has made in depth investigation ... case to unearth the unexplained investment of the Assessee and has elaborated the same in the body of the assessment order. 2) In addition to the ground no. 1 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Sangita Gupta, Indore vs. ITO 1(2) Indore, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 302/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleand**

Section 144Section 147Section 69

also ex-parte u/s 144 wherein one of the additions made by AO is Rs. 48,55,939/- on account of unexplained investment in Bitcoins u/s 69 whereas the factual position is such that the assessee made circular/repetitive transactions one after other in the nature of purchase and sale