“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

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

paid Rs. 60,00,000/- in cash out of unaccounted income toward the purchase of the said property and accordingly added the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Though the assessee requested for cross-examination of Shri Bharat Patel, the witness expressed inability to attend ... NFAC, Delhi, challenging both the reopening under section 147 of the Act and the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained investment. In its written submissions, the assessee contended that reopening was invalid as it was based solely on a third-party statement without any independent verification or application

Aditi Thapar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de- novo adjudication in the interest of justice

ITA 1273/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ArFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd.; (ii) an addition of Rs. 51,31,150/- under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment in immovable residential property; and (iii) an addition of Rs. 7,16,500/- under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash payments towards

Nagaraj Sujatha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1649/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250(6)Section 69A

next issue concerns the addition of ₹3,00,000 relating to investment in BMA Commodities Private Limited. The AO treated the same as unexplained investment. The assessee submitted that the investment was made through banking channels and the source was the bank loan of ₹20 lakhs availed from Corporation Bank

ACIT 41 2 1, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Jyotichand Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 5460/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 03/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

source, leading to the addition of this amount as ded for the source, leading to the addition of this amount as unexplained investment. Further, interest of Rs.17,972/- earned on unexplained investment. Further, interest of Rs.17,972/ unexplained investment. Further, interest of Rs.17,972/ savings accounts, which was not declared

Shakuntala Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Noida

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

ITA 5709/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 234Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

erred in confirming addition of Rs 84.04 lakhs made due to non-response by assessee to notice u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of AO as unexplained investment in immovable property. 3 The learned CIT[A] erred in confirming addition of Rs 84.04 lakhs by AO because the assessee counsel not furnished

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 145/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15-2016-17) Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8-New Meghani Nagar Corner, Sahakar Vs. 1(1)(1), Main Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Ring Rajkot - 360002 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aszpr8968H (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2025 : 04/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, J.M.: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15 – 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Dated 05.06.2024/06.06.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, On 28.03.2022/ 29.03.2024. Ita No. 143-145/Rjt/2025 Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows (Ita No. 143- Rjt-25):

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

assessee could not file proper particulars of business income / transactions to the AO and for this reason, the AO treated entire deposits as unexplained investment and made addition. The non- compliance was due to the reasonable circumstances. The appellant, therefore, most respectfully prays to kindly set aside the matter

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 144/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Kalpesh Chaturbhai Raiyani, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 143/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

Hiralben Ravibhai Kshatriya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1321/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalhiralben Ravibhai Kshatriya, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 32, Amidhara Society, Ward-4(1)(1), Bopal Daskrol, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380058. [Pan :Cxvpk9950 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Parin S Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69

verification purpose. 4. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3761920/- u/s.69 of the Act by treating same as unexplained investment ignoring submission of appellant. 5. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in not passing order as per the provision of section

Bhoomi Manas Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1208/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 69ASection 69C

bank account of the assessee was also not found explained. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer had made additions of Rs.41,12,500/- on account of unexplained investment in the immovable property under Section 69C of the Act and for unexplained cash deposit in the bank account Rs.13,00,000/- under Section ... Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of unexplained investment in immovable property amounting to Rs.41,12,500/- u/s. 69C of the Act? Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw

Income-Tax Officer, Palanpur vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1324/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,19,17,017/- made by AO on account of unexplained investment in land.” ITO Vs. Siddharth Satishbhai Joshi Asst. Year : 2014-15 - 2– 3. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings

Gurmukh Jangaldas Sukhwani, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(3), Pune

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

ITA 300/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(3)Section 14A

owner. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,55,000/- as income of the assessee as unexplained investment. The Assessing Officer also made other additions of Rs.32,34,623/- and vide order dated 30.1.2016 completed the assessment

Akashdeep Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. Principal CIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 959/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

Commissioner was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 on ground that excess stock found during survey proceedings should have been declared as unexplained investment by assessee under section 69 particularly when Assessing Officer had passed order of assessment after conducting inquiry. He accordingly submitted that the Ld. PCIT ... could not have been treated as 'undisclosed investment’ under section 69 of the Act. 16. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows: “69. Unexplained investments.- Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account

Manmandir Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. PCIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

Alco Suppliers Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Alco Suppliers Private Limited M/S Alco Suppliers (P) Ltd. National Faceless Assessment C/O Subhas Agarwal & Center, Associates (Advocate) Siddha Assessment Unit, Income Tax Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suit Department, New Delhi No.213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca5182E Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

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

Yunush Mallick, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1990/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1990/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Yunush Mallick Vs Ito, Ward-61(3), Kolkata 114, Type-Ii, Crpf Campus, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kol-91. Pan No. :Acgpy2435D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Pampa Ray, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/11/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Pampa Ray, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

Income-tax Act, 1961, and completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144, making the following additions: ₹10,75,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act; and ₹26,01,610 as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The total income

Late Mr.Bezwada Venkatram Reddy (Rep by Legal Heir Smt.B.Kamakshi), Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 957/CHNY/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 956 & 957/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Late Mr. Bezwada Venkatram The Deputy Commissioner Reddy, Vs. Of Income Tax, (Rep. By Legal Heir Central Circle – 3(4), Smt. B. Kamakshi), Chennai Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, No.20, Dr. Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Agdpb 3601R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

deposits in undisclosed bank accounts Substantive addition - 4 0 0 0 0 0 2662978 985269 unexplained investments u/s 69A Substantive addition - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7223855 unexplained investments in jewellery 28917621 39444144 114099228 8993510 9771723 2879158 8430369 4. The substantive addition for assessment years

Late Mr.Bezwada Venkatram Reddy (Rep by Legal Heir Smt.B.Kamakshi), Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 956/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 69A

Jashvantiben Manojbhai Makwana, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 500/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Authority. 2.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the addition made without any evidence of additional source of income to justify the alleged unexplained investment. 3.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition based merely on assumptions and suspicion, without any conclusive evidence to establish the genuineness ... Jashvantiben anojbhai. Makwana ‘on-money’ payment of Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, assessing officer treated this unaccounted on-money payment of Rs.1,25,000/- as unexplained investment u/s section 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Valji Harji Hirani, Bhuj vs. ITO.(Int.Txn), Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Valji Harji Hirani Vs. Ito, (Int. Txn) Meghpar, Nr. Dena Bank, Gandhidham (Gujarat) – 370201 Bhuj (Gujarat) - 370430 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agjph6338K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 05/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp-2), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 18.01.2024. (Ita 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Drp Panel Has Erroneously Applied Section 69 By Focusing On The Conditions Outlined In Section 69 Without Duly Considering The Applicant'S Submission Regarding The Source Of The Investment. It Is Emphasized That The Nre Fdrs In Question Are From Previous Years & Have Been Made From After Tax Income Earned Abroad, As Clearly Stated In The Submission. The Panel Has Failed To Acknowledge The Satisfactory Explanation Provided By The Assessee Regarding The Source Of Acquisition Of The Investment. Shri Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 69

treated as unexplained as the assessee has not submitted the complete document proving the source and the same is treated as unexplained Investment under section 69 of the Income tax Act. Tax as per rates applicable u/s 115BBE of IT Act, 1961 and added to the total income. The Assessing ... issued the draft assessment order dated 30.03.2023 u/s. 144C of the Act by making an addition of Rs.1,05,06,635/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and proposing assessment of total income at Rs. 1,05,06,635/-. Aggrieved with the proposed addition