unexplained investment — 5,821 case laws

Erothi Purnima Rani, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/VIZ/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 184/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Latha Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7676H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 185/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Purnima Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7311H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

considered it as not proved. Accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment of the assessee by making addition of Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee during the A.Y. 2009-10. 6. On being aggrieved by the order

Erothi Latha Rani, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/VIZ/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 184/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Latha Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7676H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 185/Viz/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Erothi Purnima Rani V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 4(1) D.No. 34-10-1/B Income Tax Office Daya’S Street, Gnanapuram Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530004 M.V.P. Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aavpe7311H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

considered it as not proved. Accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment of the assessee by making addition of Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee during the A.Y. 2009-10. 6. On being aggrieved by the order

Ajit Bondriya, Limassol, Cyprus vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 523/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69

assessment-order, the AO rejected assessee’s submission and ultimately made additions of (i) Rs. 1,45,63,649/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment in property and (ii) Rs. 2,16,400/- on account of capital gain from sale of shares. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first

S.G.& Co., Solapur vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1611/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69A

whether the income so offered during the course of survey u/s 133A has to be taxed as normal business income or unexplained investment / unexplained expenditure u/s 69 / 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 16. We find an identical issue had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal

Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1022/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sucram Pharmaceuticals Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, H-37-J, 2Nd Floor, Non Corporate Ward 6(4), Manthoppu Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 083. [Pan:Aakcs2196J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)(ii)Section 69

could not furnish any concrete evidence to prove the genuineness of the source for ₹.23,57,000/-, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition

Vishnu Vardhana Ram Yara, Machilipatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 846/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Vardhana Ram Yara, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 69A

relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14, after providing ample opportunities to the assessee, there was no response. Therefore, the term deposit was considered as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Act. Further, it was also observed that the assessee has received interest from ICICI Bank amounting to Rs.10

Sunny Madhukar Bhagat, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2450/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2011-12 Sunny Madhukar Bhagat A-303, Om Sai Chsl, Bldg. No.2, Tagore Nagar, Nr. Eastern Express Hwy Vikhroli E, Mumbai Pan: Anfpb5386E ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(20) (5), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Ankita Tarafdar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 2 Sunny Madhukar Bhagat Vs. Ito, Ward-41(2)(5), Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Ankita Tarafdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR

assessee had failed to explain the source of the said investment, the A.O treated the said amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as unexplained investment and made addition of the same u/s.69 of the ACT. 8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals ... Further, appellant has stated that AO has wrongly and arbitrarily made addition of Rs.40 lacs u/s.69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment in the immovable property purchased by the appellant on 01.10.2018. Despite the fact that property had been purchased out of savings and borrowings made

Deepak Kaushal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 608/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 250

Assessing Officer has passed the order u /s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.5,44,23,750/- on account of unexplained investment Deepak Kaushal vs. ITO which stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as no details /documentary evidences were filed by the assessee before

Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi ( Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Sethi), New Delhi vs. ACIT Cricle-28(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3670/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Late Shri Som Prakash Sethi Vs Acit, (Through Legal Heir Mr. Aman Circle-28(1), Sethi), S-541, Greater Kailash New Delhi. Part-Ii, South Delhi, New Delhi-110048. Pan-Abyps3902L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akash Ojha, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 68

section 69 of the Act per se could not be made applicable to the facts of the instant case as it talks about „Unexplained Investments‟ made by an assessee. 3.6. The ld. AO did not heed to the aforesaid contentions of the assessee and the documentary evidences placed on record