← 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

M/S. 45 Bus Route Owner Association, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 272/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act for the reason being high value transactions made by the assessee in the form of unexplained investment to the tune of ₹77,01,650/- in the bank account. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and in response thereof

Sastha Hospitality, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2077/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2077/Chny/2025 िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sastha Hospitality, Income Tax Officer, No.1/1, Abith Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-19(3) Choolaimedu S.O, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 094. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aclfs-6402-R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,थ*/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Manjusha B, Ca. +,थ* की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit.

For Appellant: Ms. Manjusha B, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 263Section 68Section 69

verify and examine the source for the credit of Rs.22,64,08,460/- due to absence of proper evidence and the credits treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act, the PCIT, Chennai-3 invoked provisions of Section 263 of the Act and passed an order u/s.263

Balaji, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1279/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr.A. Suraj Nahar, CA
Section 148Section 69A

u/s.144/147 of the Act, wherein, he made also an addition u/s.69A of the Act on account of time deposit amounting to ₹10 lakhs as unexplained investment since the assessee couldn’t prove the nature and source of the same. Before us, the assessee has filed the additional evidences to prove

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Cholan Auto Finance, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1390/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

there were certain entries found from the records of third party is not sufficient to make addition on the ground that assessee had made unexplained investments. :-9-: ITA. No.:1390 /Chny/2024 & CO No.61/Chny/2024 17.17 The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench of Tribunal

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

purchase had been explained by the assessee only to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- the remaining amount Rs.51,87,500/- was treated as Unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income tax Act. 4. On verification of records, it was also noticed that stamp value of the property

Pramod Jaggi, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5119/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

case that the assessee had not explained source of the said bank deposits treated as the purchase money which have been treated as his unexplained investments. I thus, find no merit in the impugned addition of Rs. 16 lacs which stands deleted in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 6. This assessee

Sutanuti Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 4041/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Sutanuti Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Delhi Flat No.801, 8Th Floor, Block- B, The Sb Yudh, Cghs Pno-6B, Sec-2, Phase-I, Dwarka, Near Moth, Er Dairy, New Delhi Pan No.Aancs1363E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

total purchase consideration amounting to Rs.97,06,000/- (Purchase value Rs.91,35,000/- + Registry and other expenses Rs.5,71,000) should not be treated unexplained investment in the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16, in the absence of supportive evidences, genuineness and creditworthiness of fund. 4. On perusal ... total investment of amounting to Rs.97,06,000/- (Purchase value of Rs.91,35,000 + Registry and other expense Rs.5,71,000/- ) was treated as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the said order the assessee filed

Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 69

Wani 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in treating the post-employment benefits as unexplained investment under Section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that assessee has received post employment benefit from Government ... available on 3 Sudam Kisanrao Wani record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of fixed deposits as unexplained investments u/sec 69 of the Act Rs.20,03,100/- and similarly interest income of Rs.1,25,251/- under the income from other sources and assessed

Leena Ashok Zope, Akola vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Akola

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

ITA 428/NAG/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 56(1)(x)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Rs.27,00,000/- from genuine source namely old savings, gold loan and borrowings; therefore addition u/s 69 confined at Rs. 27,00,000/- as unexplained investment is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 10 The assessee denies the liability of interest charges U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income ... considering the information available on record, has invoked the provisions of sec144 of the Act and made best judgment assessment by making addition of unexplained investment u/sec 69 of the Act of Rs.27,00,000/- and also the difference in the market value as per the provisions of section

Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka, Wardha vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2468/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

case of such other person namely Shri Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka.” 6. Subsequently, ld. AO concluded the assessment proceedings making addition for unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act r.w.s.115BBE of the Act at Rs.4.13,00,000/-. He also made addition for the interest income on the alleged investments at Rs.44 ... income of Rs.1,22,49,500/- declared in the return filed on 30.11.2018 ld. AO made addition only for the interest earned on alleged unexplained investment at Rs.1,95,000/- and assessed the income at Rs.1,24,44,500/-. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the legal

Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka, Wardha vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2467/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 250

case of such other person namely Shri Nikhil Rameshchand Ranka.” 6. Subsequently, ld. AO concluded the assessment proceedings making addition for unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act r.w.s.115BBE of the Act at Rs.4.13,00,000/-. He also made addition for the interest income on the alleged investments at Rs.44 ... income of Rs.1,22,49,500/- declared in the return filed on 30.11.2018 ld. AO made addition only for the interest earned on alleged unexplained investment at Rs.1,95,000/- and assessed the income at Rs.1,24,44,500/-. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the legal

Saadnakari Hazarathaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 660/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.660/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Sadnakari Hazarathaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adfph7103R Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

came into light during the course of appellate proceedings of one Mr. S.K. Ramthulla, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the assessee made unexplained investment of Rs.32,60,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed opinion that income had escaped tax. Therefore, notice u/s.147 of the Act was issued ... book results. In original assessment no other addition was made. In the reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment, etc. it is now settled law that the Assessing Officer having rejected the book results cannot make any other additions. 6.2 Following the precedence

Venkata Subba Reddy Karnati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Venkata Subba Reddy Income Tax Officer, Vs. Karnati, Ward-1, Hyderabad. Proddatur. Pan:Ahjpv4271E (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

came into light during the course of appellate proceedings of one Mr. S.K. Ramthulla, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the assessee made unexplained investment of Rs.31,55,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed opinion that income had escaped tax. Therefore, notice u/s.147 of the Act was issued ... book results. In original assessment no other addition was made. In the reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment, etc. it is now settled law that the Assessing Officer having rejected the book results cannot make any other additions. 6.2 Following the precedence

Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Proddatur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.633/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) Shri Aare Venkata Ramanaiah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Aoopr0993M Proddatur. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Inturi Rama Rao : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheshwar Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 145Section 147Section 250Section 68

came into light during the course of appellate proceedings of one Mr. S.K. Ramthulla, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the assessee made unexplained investment of Rs.18,50,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer formed opinion that income had escaped tax. Therefore, notice u/s.147 of the Act was issued ... liquor at 5%. In original assessment no other addition was made. In the reopening of assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of unexplained investment, etc. it is now settled law that the Assessing Officer having rejected the book results cannot make any other additions. 6.2 Following the precedence

Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 196/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving telescoping effect towards the unexplained investments/ expenditure, against the unexplained credits in the group related concerns of the earlier or current years. 12. The assessee may add, alter, or modify or substitute ... dated 12/12/2019, determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 36,14,47,165/-, i.e., after making three additions viz., (i) unexplained investment U/s. 69 of the Act (as admitted in the course of the search proceedings): Rs. 35,16,93,754/-; (ii) unexplained investment towards stamp duty and other

Nitaben Girishbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, while upholding the validity of reopening, we set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) on merits and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law

ITA 1560/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Nitaben Girishbhai Patel The Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 33/B, Swi Park, Private Plot Vejalpur Madhuvrund Society Ahmedabad. Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aappp 5738 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Assessee By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271ASection 69A

part of the investment (30% being Rs. 5,90,605/-) as explained, the AO treated the balance amount of Rs. 13,78,078/- as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs. 83,38,658/- as against the returned income of Rs.69 ... reassessment order, the AO has not made any addition on that footing but has instead made addition of Rs.13,78,078/- u/s 69A towards unexplained investment. Thus, the addition ultimately made has no nexus with the reasons recorded, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Reliance was placed on various

ACIT(E), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Registrar Gujrat University, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1334/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

case, Ld. CIT is justified in deleting the addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.38,72,56,429/- being unexplained investment in time deposits." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Gujarat University, is a statutory body established under the Gujarat University ... Assessing Officer, during the course of reassessment, made an addition of Rs.38,72,56,429/- u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investments, primarily based on data from Form 26AS, Insight Portal, and TDS returns filed by third parties.4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred

Anandarao Kota, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 238/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Anandarao Kota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Cvopk0669Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is That The Assessee Is An Individual, No Regular Return Of Income U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Was Filed For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,03,97,300/- In The Savings Bank Account Formed Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

addition on account of business income of Rs.9,55,657/-, made addition of Rs.3,04,934/-, made addition of FD of Rs.25,000/- as unexplained investment and interest income earned of Rs.18,068/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before

Mavalli Mosque Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 436/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri G. Venkatesh
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

assessee had not responded to any of the notices and therefore the entire cash deposits made during the year has been treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 781 days

Gopal Jadwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1047/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 69

money lending business and hence the provisions of Section 115BBE are not applicable to him. 8.5 However, the AO treated the same as unexplained investment under Section 69 as no details were provided by the appellant with regards to the source. It is observed that the appellant had declared ... assessee in pursuant to search should be assessed as “business income” arising from money lending activities, as contended by the assessee, or as “unexplained investment” taxable under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act, as held by the AO and confirmed by the learned