← 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

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1367/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

investments have been accepted in the earlier assessment years in the hands of the amalgamating companies, then how the same can be treated as unexplained investments when these investments were sold by the same amalgamating companies. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT ... that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six

ITA 1366/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

investments have been accepted in the earlier assessment years in the hands of the amalgamating companies, then how the same can be treated as unexplained investments when these investments were sold by the same amalgamating companies. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT ... that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1365/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

investments have been accepted in the earlier assessment years in the hands of the amalgamating companies, then how the same can be treated as unexplained investments when these investments were sold by the same amalgamating companies. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT ... that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1364/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

investments have been accepted in the earlier assessment years in the hands of the amalgamating companies, then how the same can be treated as unexplained investments when these investments were sold by the same amalgamating companies. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT ... that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances

Shree Ramchandra Ingot India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1363/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

investments have been accepted in the earlier assessment years in the hands of the amalgamating companies, then how the same can be treated as unexplained investments when these investments were sold by the same amalgamating companies. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT ... that the pressure of search was built so much that he had to make the surrender without having actual possession of the assets or unexplained investments or expenses incurred and that there was no such income as undisclosed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, after considering the fact and circumstances

Jai Prakash Saini, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 3996/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jai Prakash Saini Vs Ito 4240, Arya Pura Sabzi Nfac, New Delhi Mandi, Roshanara Road, New Delhi-110007. Pan-Bbwps4100D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mohit Bansal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69B

cannot be the income amount. 3. That the Ld. AO has taxed Rs. 27,42,70,900/- as unexplained investment u/s 69B in respect of purchase of immovable property from M/s Summit Apartments Private Limited that was sold during the year under consideration, without considering the F fact the amount

Kiran Mahana, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3441/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Kiran Mahana Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -27 Trough Legal Heir Ved New Delhi Parkash Mahana,229/39, New Delhi West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110008 Pan No. Aippm6862K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69B

after considering the submission submitted by the assesse and made the addition of Rs.21,80,000/- u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained investment. 4. Aggrieved the order of the Assessing officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated ... available on record. The crucial question that arises for our consideration was whether the seized documents that was relied upon making the addition towards unexplained investment was found from the locker/ premise of the assesse during the course of search conducted at the LARA Group. This fact is evident from

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.78,00,000/- made on account of alleged unexplained investment in purchase of property treating the same to be income u/s 69 in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is arbitrary and unjustified ... aforesaid information was not available during the assessment proceedings on both occasions and has escaped assessment. Therefore, I have reason to believe that unexplained investment of Rs.78 Lacs has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the 1.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12. 5. The assessee

Bhavin Girishbhai Shah, Bhavnagar vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction- the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Bhavnagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1378/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

unexplained and unaccounted money utilised for making the impugned advances. The Assessing Officer thus treated the sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and brought the same to tax. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A).After

Dipak Dadaji Khairnar, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1917/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Dipak Dadaji Khairnar Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon At Post Kotbel, Baglan, Vs. Nashik – 423204 Pan: Anipk9825E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 17-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Smt N C Shilpa, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.80,50,000/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in the property and Rs.10,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act being unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. The Assessing Officer accordingly completed

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

seized in the premises of Mr.S.Jagathrakshakan plus :-3-: ITA. Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 Rs.5,23,15,699/- seized in the premises of Mr.Selvakumar) as 'unexplained investment' in gold / diamond jewellery by passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 01.03.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that, out of the addition made to the tune of Rs.14,60,33,144/- under the head ‘unexplained investment', an estimated sum of Rs.72,45,018/- alone is taxable, however, under the head 'unaccounted business income'. The Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

seized in the premises of Mr.Jagathrakshakan plus :-3-: ITA. Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 Rs.5,23,15,699/- seized in the premises of Mr.Selvakumar) as 'unexplained investment' in gold / diamond jewellery by passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 01.03.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that, out of the addition made to the tune of Rs.14,60,33,144/- under the head ‘unexplained investment', an estimated sum of Rs.72,45,018/- alone is taxable, however, under the head 'unaccounted business income'. The Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue

DCIT, Chennai vs. Jagathrakskan Srinisha, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

seized in the premises of Mr.S.Jagathrakshakan plus :-3-: ITA. Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 Rs.5,23,15,699/- seized in the premises of Mr.Selvakumar) as 'unexplained investment' in gold / diamond jewellery by passing an order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 01.03.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that, out of the addition made to the tune of Rs.14,60,33,144/- under the head ‘unexplained investment', an estimated sum of Rs.72,45,018/- alone is taxable, however, under the head 'unaccounted business income'. The Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue

Abani Ranjan Maity, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5590/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Smr Abani Ranjan Maity, Income Tax Officer, 301, Lucky Star Bldg., Ward 20(1)(1), Jerbai Wadia Road, Parel, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Lalbaugh, Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Awnpm 4623L Appellant By : Shri Rajesh C. Dali Respondent By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. DaliFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

found that the assessee during the year had made cash deposits in bank account aggregating to Rs.44,95,000/-. By treating these amounts as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, respectively, the AO added back to the income of the assessee

Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 1, Navsari

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

ITA 384/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Vs. Ito, Sanjay Farm, Talav Chora, Dist – Ward – 1, Navsari, Chikhli - 396321 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajepd7118B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

notices nor filed any submission. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) asked the assessee as to why cash deposit should not be treated as unexplained investment. Again the assessee failed to comply with the same. The AO held that the assessee has nothing to explain regarding the source of cash ... evidence/details/explanation, the cash and other credit entries of Rs.32,82,663/- (16,01,000 + 16,81,663) in his bank account was treated as unexplained investment. The total income was assessed at Rs.32,82,663/- as against the returned income Nil. Penalty proceedings

Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 368/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.367 & 368/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Bodra Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.108, Vs. 37, Diamond Nagar, Mini Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Hira Bazar, Varachha Road, - 395 001 Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abypb 6267 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

total income of the assessee u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as ITA Nos.367-368/SRT/2025/AYs 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra unexplained investment in cash. Accordingly, order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed by AO by determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1

Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Bodra, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 367/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.367 & 368/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: (2015-16 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdishbhai Karamshibhai Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Bodra Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Room No.108, Vs. 37, Diamond Nagar, Mini Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat Hira Bazar, Varachha Road, - 395 001 Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abypb 6267 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69

total income of the assessee u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as ITA Nos.367-368/SRT/2025/AYs 15-16 & 17-18 Jagdishbhai K Bodra unexplained investment in cash. Accordingly, order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed by AO by determining total income of the assessee at Rs.1

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 23 7. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. 23 7. In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Pawan Kumar Jhalani, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 966/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 132(1)Section 153CSection 4

embedded in such unrecorded transactions is taxable, Abhishek Corporation v. DCIT unless the Revenue establishes with evidence that 1. [1999] 63 TTJ 651 (ITAT unexplained investments were made. Ahmedabad) In block assessments, only undisclosed income unearthed by search can be taxed. Additions based on estimates, assumptions, DVO valuations, or deemed ... Case Name and Citation Taxman 654 (Gujarat High Court) Sales represent both cost and profit; therefore, unless the Department proves that the assessee made unexplained investments in acquiring the goods sold, only the profit component of such sales is taxable. The Gujarat High Court held that undisclosed sales are evidence