← 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

Sh. Rakesh Soni, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1292/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69

confirming the addition of Rs.2,38,608/- u/s 69 of the Act by holding that 83.84 gms of gold bullion found in search is unexplained investment of the assessee by ignoring the fact that the said bullion pertains to Sh. Ram Kumar Soni which has been explained

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Silver Infra, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1424/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

assessee was partly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) had held that entire on- money payment towards purchase of land cannot be taxed as unexplained investment and had directed to estimate profit on such on-money payment @ 15%. 4. Now both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal ... Therefore, the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs. 11 crores u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in restricting the addition in respect of on-money payment for purchase of land @ 15% only. He, therefore

Silver Infra, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1419/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

assessee was partly allowed. The Ld. CIT(A) had held that entire on- money payment towards purchase of land cannot be taxed as unexplained investment and had directed to estimate profit on such on-money payment @ 15%. 4. Now both the assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal ... Therefore, the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs. 11 crores u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not correct in restricting the addition in respect of on-money payment for purchase of land @ 15% only. He, therefore

Adam Haji Amir Hamza Nadaf, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-2, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 445/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law a learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.39,99,535/- as unexplained investments by invoking provisions of section 69 of the IT Act, being cash deposited in Shri Renukamata Multistate Urban Co-operative credit society Ltd., without

Irien Veigas, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 1368/BANG/2025[2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 250Section 69

therefore the AO had presumed that the source for the said investment was not explained and therefore treated the said investment as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) also decided the appeal on the limitation ground as well as on the merits ex-parte

Jiten Kishore Ajmera (Legal Heir of Late Shri Kishore H. Ajmera), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4843/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Jiten Kishore Ajmera Ito Ward 25(1)(1), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Kautilya Bhavan, Kishore H. Ajmera), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, Bandra (East), Lt Marg, Pathakwadi, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Agppa2452B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Prashant Ghumare, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, Despite Of Affording Various Opportunities In The Appellate Proceedings Initiated Against The Assessment Order Dated 11.03.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Whereby The Assessing Officer (Ao) Made The Addition Of Rs.22,34,538/- Being Unexplained Investment In Jewellery, The Assessee Made No Compliance And/Or Filed No Submissions/Documents. Therefore, The Assessee Is Not Entitled For Any Leniency.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

assessment order dated 11.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition of Rs.22,34,538/- being unexplained investment in jewellery, the Assessee made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Therefore, the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency. 2 Mr. Jiten Kishore Ajmera

Kripa Ram Vyas, Gwalior vs. ITO, Gwalior

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

ITA 216/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kripa Ram Vyas, Vs. Ito, Pgv College, Jiwaji Gwalior Ganj, Lashkar Ho, Gird, Gwalior -474001 Pan: Abupv2129C Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

Vyas was framed ex parte u/s 144 read with Section 147 of the Act after making addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of unexplained investment in mutual funds. Even before the NFAC, no representation was made by the assessee as he is not conversant with the electronic notices sent

Baldevbhai Vithhakbhai Patel, Pardi vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 582/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Am. Smatpt Sitet Bta No.582/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 68

observed that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of impugned transactions. Therefore, the AO made additions Rs.19,50,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act and Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The total assessed income of Rs.23

Sanjay Mehta, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

ITA 201/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69B

Accordingly, the Panel directs the AO to make an addition of Rs.69,32,250/- u/s 69B of the IT Act as unexplained investment on account of 'on money' paid by the assessee to purchase the said property in the property. Further, any addition in this regard made in other ... Accordingly, the Panel directs the AO to make an addition of Rs.69,32,250/- u/s 69B of the IT Act as unexplained investment on account of 'on money' paid by the assessee to purchase the said property in the property. Further, any addition in this regard made in other

Devang Rajnikant Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1090/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Virang Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

transactions were not reflected in the Trading Account. In light of the above observations, the purchases amounting to ₹21,43,370/- were treated as unexplained investments under section 69, of the Act and the alleged scrips/valuables amounting to ₹56,76,902/-, not recorded in the books of accounts, were treated

Ratan Shaw, Naihati vs. ITO, Ward 51(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.309/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ratan Shaw………………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 15, L. N. Kabiraj Road, Gorifa, Naihati, Wb-743166. [Pan: Bvups8926H] Vs. Ito, Ward-51(3), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

closing figure claimed. Considering the explanation and documents placed before us, we are of the view that the addition of Rs.19,90,210/- as unexplained investment is not justified. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.19

Palanisamy Anand, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1528/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1528/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Palanisamy Anand, Income Tax Officer, D.No.2, Mariamman Kovil Street, Vs. Ward -1(6), Seshanchavadi, Valappadi Salem. Salem– 636 111. [Pan:Amcpa-1644-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 69

aforesaid notices issued from time to time. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,99,97,000/- invested in immovable property and treated as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and concluded the assessment by passing an exparte order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 30.05.2023. 4. Aggrieved

Sangeetaben Bharatkumar Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4668/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblesangeeta Bharatkumar Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Ward-19(1)(1), 78-80 Gora Gandhi Building, Mumbai. C.P, Tank Road, Mumbai-400004. [Pan :Aftpm1095 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punamiya, Ar Respondent By: Shri Vivek Perampura, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 69

please be allowed. 09. That the Ld. FAO has made addition huge addition of Rs. 11,82,67,500/- on account of unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts available on record and without making further inquiry is bad in law and requires ... Assessing Officer, therefore, passed order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,82,67,500/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act relating to the property i.e. Genext Hardware & Parks Private Limited. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,50,000/- which

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Sudipta Ajoykumar Mukherjee, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3605/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 132Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

assessee was issued a showcause notice asking her to showcause why the cash payment of Rs. 80,00,000/- should not be treated as unexplained investment and added back to the total income for the year under consideration. In her reply, the assessee stated that she received a letter dated ... assessee and no flat was allotted or purchased by the assessee in the said society. Therefore, there is no question of any unexplained investment triggering the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. 5. We have given a careful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact

Om Lamcoat Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. The ACIT, Centra Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 287/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 250

unaccounted transaction. Further, as proposed in the show cause notice, a sum of Rs. 24,33,062/- was treated by the assessing officer, as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act in FY 2013-14 (AY 2014-15), being initial seed capital required to start the chain of unaccounted purchase

Om Lamcoat Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 286/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No. 286 & 287/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) बनाम M/S. Om Lamcoat Pvt. Ltd. The Acit, 8-A, Kandla National Highway, Vs. Central Circle -1, Opp. Dadashri Nagar, At. Morbi – Aayakar Bhavan, Amruta 363642 Estate, M. G. Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aabco8163G (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 250

unaccounted transaction. Further, as proposed in the show cause notice, a sum of Rs. 24,33,062/- was treated by the assessing officer, as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act in FY 2013-14 (AY 2014-15), being initial seed capital required to start the chain of unaccounted purchase

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5 lacs on account of alleged unexplained investment in Dhanwa farmhouse on the basis of the statement of assessee recorded during search which was retracted later on by not accepting the contention ... erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.68,85,180/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery on the basis of the 1 statement of assessee recorded during search which was retracted later on by not accepting the contention

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 644/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5 lacs on account of alleged unexplained investment in Dhanwa farmhouse on the basis of the statement of assessee recorded during search which was retracted later on by not accepting the contention ... erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.68,85,180/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery on the basis of the 1 statement of assessee recorded during search which was retracted later on by not accepting the contention

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 643/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

income. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5 lacs on account of alleged unexplained investment in Dhanwa farmhouse on the basis of the statement of assessee recorded during search which was retracted later on by not accepting the contention ... erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.68,85,180/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in jewellery on the basis of the 1 statement of assessee recorded during search which was retracted later on by not accepting the contention

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer- 6(2), Lucknow

ITA 804/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer-6(2)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned Ci T(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case ... proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter-on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned