← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Ms.Vijayasai Lakshmi Srinivasa Cotton Mills, Guntur

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 359/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

rights of movie is proposed to be assessed in the hands of assessee-company for the assessment year 2016-2017 on protective basis as unexplained investment. In response, the assessee submitted that, the impugned advance of Rs.2,15,00,000/- was given to JBRMPL out of Over Draft Account ... basis towards advance given to above 24 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 company under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained investment, whereas, in the hands of the company, the Assessing Officer made addition towards cash deposit under section 69A of the Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Penamaluru

ITA 278/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sreelakshmi Musunuru, Ward-2(3), Penamaluru. Vijayawada. Pan: Aojpm4884K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 69

aforesaid observations, held the investments made by the assessee towards the purchase of the subject immovable properties aggregating to Rs. 40,45,070/- as unexplained investments U/s. 69 of the Act. 6. Apart from that, the AO observed that the assessee had, though advanced an amount of Rs. 82 lakhs

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

noticed from the seized documents found during the search proceedings that the assessee has declared additional income of Rs.13,09,000/- on account of unexplained investment in plot. As per statement of the partner of this firm Sh. Ashok Bansal recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

noticed from the seized documents found during the search proceedings that the assessee has declared additional income of Rs.13,09,000/- on account of unexplained investment in plot. As per statement of the partner of this firm Sh. Ashok Bansal recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income

Hasmukh Natvarlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 170/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 245ASection 69

appeal: 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (appeal) NFAC Income Tax Department has grievously erred in confirming the addition of unexplained investment amounting of Rs. 6,27,795/- u/s 69 of the Act. Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– 2. That on facts ... gross receipt. Further, an addition of Rs.6,27,795/- was made u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment. 4. Aggrieved against the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

Udaybhai De vs. Hibhai Solanki, Ahmedabadvs.the ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1577/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR
Section 148Section 250Section 69

facts in upholding the addition made U/S 69 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 17,60,511/- as unexplained investment. 6. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 3. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel

Mahendrakumar R. Punjabi, Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Prithu Parimal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

solely based on surmises, conjectures, and suspicion, and is devoid of any tangible, credible, or cogent evidence supporting the allegation of unexplained investment. Consequently, the same is liable to be deleted. 8. It is further submitted that no incriminating material or specific information implicating the Appellant in any wrongful ... Subsequently the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act for the reason that appellant had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 11,27,450/-. Since the assessee remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment after making addition

Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 775/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.772/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal. Pan: Bhrpm0791F Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.775/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 2. Ms. Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad. Pan: Agppr3343A (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka & Ms. Rapolu Kavitha ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-12 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 05.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

seller. The Ld. AO being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee treated the entire cash payment of Rs.29,80,403/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld. AO also noted cash deposits of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.40,000/- in assessee's bank account ... Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed assessment under section 153C on 23.02.2024, making addition of Rs.34,19,403/- under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.39,70,073/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before

Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 772/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.772/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal. Pan: Bhrpm0791F Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.775/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), 2. Ms. Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad. Pan: Agppr3343A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka & Ms. Rapolu Kavitha ("The Assessees\”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-12 (“Ld. Cit(A)"), Both Dated 05.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

seller. The Ld. AO being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee treated the entire cash payment of Rs.29,80,403/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld. AO also noted cash deposits of Rs.49,000/- and Rs.40,000/- in assessee's bank account ... Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed assessment under Section 153C on 23.02.2024, making addition of Rs.34,19,403/- under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment, assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.39,70,073/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before

Amaravara Indigital Media Services Private Limited, Hyderabab vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 487/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik,CIT-DR
Section 144

comply to the notices issued by Ld. AO. Therefore, the Ld. AO treated the entire cash deposit of Rs.1,78,82,525/- as unexplained investments. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 14.12.2019, assessing the total

Sesham Ramanaiah, Prakasam vs. ITO., Ward-1, Ongole

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

ITA 1062/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Swathi Sheela, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

bank statements before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, the Ld. AO treated the assessee’s share in entire purchase cost of Rs.56,45,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B ... received the loan in earlier years. It was contended that since the transfer was by way of adjustment of earlier loan, no unexplained investment arises in the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that, the addition made by the Ld. AO in the year under consideration is liable

Pellucid Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Pellucid Securities Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Tax Appeal, (Nfac) 301, Turf View, National Faceless Appeal 63, Dadarkar Compound, Centre – Ito Ward 7(3)(1), Vs. Tardeo, Ab-126J, Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra - 400034 Churchgate, Pan: Aafcp1405L Mumbai Maharashtra – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.10.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 183 Days In Filing This Appeal, As Pointed Out By The Registry, On Which The Assessee Has Claimed That Due To Non-Receipt Of The Impugned Order On Its Email Registered As Well As In Physical Form, The Delay Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Malafide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reason.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

vide assessment order dated 25.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 & 144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.7,30,700/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.31,00,000/- unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and Rs.76,614/- being commission paid

Syed Mohammad Ali Zaidi, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(5), Meerut

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

ITA 1048/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansyed Mohammad Ali Zaidi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(5), 218, Al Murtaza Zaidi Nagar Society, Meerut. Meerut – 250 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aafpz1420J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Issued On The Assessee Through Speed Post After Obtaining Approval From Ld. Pr. Cit, Meerut. Since There Was No Response From The Assessee, Notices U/S 142(1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued To The Assessee. Since There Was No Compliance

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

bank account. Since there was no response from the assessee the same was added u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), Meerut and assessee has raised grounds on non-serving of notice

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Shri Upendra Prasad, Loherdaga

In the result, both i.e. the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Shri Upendra Prasad, Circle-2, Prop. M/S Bina Cement, Near Block Vs. Ranchi. More, Loherdaga-835302 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Alypp 3084 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

difference of ₹ 1,12,83,586/- was determined by the Assessing Officer as the difference in the cost of construction and treated as unexplained investment of the assessee. It was a submission that the ld. CIT(A) when adjudicating this issue had granted the assessee the benefit of additional

Chandrahas Puthran, Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No 1.1, Mangalore

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

ITA 869/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Likith Patel, M.K
Section 69

reason for such payment and the source for the said payment was not explained by the assessee and therefore treated the said advance as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Page 3 of 5 4. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT ... MESCOM was adjusted towards the sale consideration and therefore the said payment made during the F.Y. 2013-14 would not be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. The Ld.AR also filed the copy of the sale deed in support of his arguments. 7. The Ld.DR submitted that

Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 520/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Nabeel Saad, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

time. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment by making the following additions: a) Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act – Rs.25,00,000/- b) Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act -Rs.17,49,325/- Total: -Rs.42,49,325/- Damodar Reddy Marupuru, Bangalore Page 3 of 5 3.1 Thus

Neeta Chaudhary, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result ground no.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/BANG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 133Section 14Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

appeals were decided against the assessee. 15. Thus, addition made by the learned assessing officer by invoking the provisions of section 69A of unexplained investment is not proper and therefore the orders of the learned lower authorities are reversed, and Page 8 of 8 the addition made is directed

Shri Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, International Taxation, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.89/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Gordhandas Vaja Income Tax Officer Int. 202, Harmony Heights, Capital Road, बनाम Tax), Gandhidham, Income- Science City, Ahmedabad-380 060 Tax Office, Amruta Estate /Vs. Building, Nr. Girnar Cinema, M.G. Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं . / Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpv 3289 L (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19, Is Directed Against The Final Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, (After Incorporating Findings Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 Mumbai, Dated 29.12.2023), Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) .

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Takkar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69

Officer has erred in making additions of Rs.2,40,00,000/- and Rs.21,03,650/- treating the term deposits in HDFC Bank as alleged unexplained investment u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and erred in taxing the same applying the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act only ... Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.32,50,000/- treating the investment in purchase of immovable property at Thane as allege unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 only on the basis of order dtd.29/12/2023 passed by the Hon’ble DRP, Mumbai. In fact, assessee

Lalit Kumar Jain, Alwar vs. ITO Ward, 1(2), Alwar

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

ITA 1126/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

challenged the addition of Rs.18,56,810/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained investment through alleged bogus shares transactions in STEEL EXCHANGE LIMITED. The AO issued a show cause notice dated 09.03.2023, seeking explanation for the said addition

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

addition ofRs. 10,60,000/- made by the ld. AO u/s 69A on account of cash deposited in the bank account as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69A, also erred in ignoring the other material, evidence and facts available on record. Hence the addition so made ... Rs.6,20,000/-is added to the income of the assesse under section 69A of the Income tax act, 1961 as unexplained investment. Further, assesse has not been able to produce any documentary evidence that he had cash balance of Rs.4,40,000/- with him during the year. Therefore