“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

Varatharaj Venugopal, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1058/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1058/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varatharaj Venugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13, Thiruvalluvar Nagar 4Th St., Ward 1(1), Nesavalar Colony, East P.N. Road, Tiruppur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan:Aylpv5231F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghavan, Advocate (Virtual) For Shri R.C. Sachin, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan, Advocate (virtual) for Shri R.C. Sachin, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

r.w.s. 144B of the Act by treating the investment made in purchase of immovable property at 3 I.T.A. No.1058/Chny/25 ₹.33,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ... Officer completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by treating the purchase of immovable property at ₹.33,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act in the absence of any documentary evidence brought on record. However, before the first appellate authority, the assessee

Ayeshabee Babu Khan, Mankhured vs. ITO 27 1 1 Mumbai, Vashi Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2887/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailayeshabee Babu Khan, 1, Mankhured Station Road, T.F. Donar S.O., Mumbai – 400088 ............... Appellant Pan : Cgopk4227M V/S Ito – 27(1)(1), Vashi Railway Station, ……………… Respondent 3X7X Gqp 3Rd & 4Th Floor, 6Th Tower Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 251

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs. 39 lacs as unexplained investment even though the same was purchased out of sale proceeds of old flat for Rs. 49 lacs and thereby eligible for exemption u/s. 54 4. In the facts ... from the sale of the immovable property. Further, the AO also considered the purchase consideration of the immovable property of Rs.39 Lakh as an unexplained investment and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 69 of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned

Savita Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 609/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

order and the averments of the appellant have been considered by me. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to addition made towards unexplained investment amounting to Rs. 13,95,000. It is the contention of the appellant that the property was purchased for a total consideration ... unexplained in the hands of the appellant and the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the sum of Rs.13,95,000 as unexplained investment under Sec.69 of the Act is upheld. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed".” 5. That order of the ld. CIT(A) is under challenge

Pramod Kumar Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

confirming the action of Ld.AO in making addition of Rs.21,55,788/- being purchase of plot of land, u/s 69 treating it as an unexplained investment. The addition so made is contrary to the law and facts, unjustified, and excessive and deserves a complete deletion ... regard to source of such investment made in purchase of property, therefore considering the facts of the case, Rs.21,55,788/-, was treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred

Abilash Rao Joseph, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 105/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghu RamFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

ITA.No.105/Hyd./2024 6. The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs.49,62,000 under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment made by the Appellant. The AO/DRP failed to appreciate the evidences filed by the Appellant before them explaining the sources for the consideration of Rs.49 ... only Rs.10,09,937 during the previous year relevant to asst. year under consideration, should not have made addition of Rs.49,62,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that

Grace Jayanthi Rani, Rep. by Jcd Prabhakar, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 523/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:523/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Grace Jayanthi Rani, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By J C D Prabhakar, Vs. Corporate Circle 1(1), No.1, 4Th Avenue, Harrington Road, Chennai. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. [Pan:Aeppc-1579-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T

Section 1Section 250Section 251Section 69A

company M/s.GSPL cannot override the provisions of the Act and therefore the source of the transaction in the hands of the assessee remains as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and confirmed the addition by passing an order dated 14.10.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

Ramachandran Annapoorni, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-9(1), Chennai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Gowda, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

NFAC, Delhi erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,34,650/- being the time deposits into the bank account of the appellant as unexplained investment in terms of Section 69 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 9. The NFAC

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3319/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3318/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3319/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Chinnarasu Veeramani बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 43A, Gandhi Road, Edayampatti Chennai. Chonnaakodiyur Village, Vs. Jolarpet-638 851 (Tn) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adkpv-3559-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas (Cit) – Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishna (Fca) & Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca) – Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Have Identical Facts. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19 [Cit(A)] On 17-10-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

otherwise by rebutting evidence. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to the total income on account of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 of the Act based on additional documents and details requisitioned by him during the appellate proceedings without providing opportunity ... Rules 1962. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.5,05,28,400/- to the total Income on account of unexplained investment in shares of M/s. Home Designers & Fabricators Pvt Ltd (HDFPL) on the ground that the AO has not brought any cogent and corroborative evidence without taking

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3318/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Chinnarasu Veeramani, Jolarpet

In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 3317/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishna (FCA) &

Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 69

Gauri Shankar Saboo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.18/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gauri Shankar Saboo…….……...................…...........................……….……Appellant Poddar Bagan, Harmu Road, Jharkhand-834001. [Pan: Adaps2140Q] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Ranchi..…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar & R. R. Mittal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 07, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 20.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2018-19 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.69,06,220/- & The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. In The Case Of The Assessee, There Was Survey/S 133A Was Conducted On 30.01.2018 & The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Act On The Issue Of Difference Of Stock Found During The Search Of 63,71,988/-. During The Search, The Assessee Offered Rs.50,00,000/- Which Was Later Revised To Rs.58,16,500/- & The Same Was Duly Reflected In The P&L A/C. However, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Disclosure Vis-À-Vis A

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

that the disclosure vis-à-vis a I.T.A. No.18/Ran/2024 Gauri Shankar Saboo significant difference computed during the survey and accordingly treated the same as unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where ... separately or independently found which is the part of regular business stock and were almost disclosed stock. Therefore, it was not the case of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act as no unexplained undisclosed asset was found. The ld. AR stressed on the fact that two provisions cannot

Abdul Rasheed, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

ITA 657/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

ITBA portal, the assessment was completed by the AO by determining the total income at Rs.59,70,817/- by considering the cash deposit as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. I.T.A. No. 657/Asr/2024 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 5. The matter was carried in appeal before the first appellate

Ritu Agarwala, Shillong vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

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

ITA 67/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115Section 127Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

justified in arbitrarily treating additional business income of Rs. 35,87,244/-on account of difference in valuation of stock as unexplained investment in stock within the meaning of section 69 of the Act and consequently, charging the same to tax under section 11588E of the Act. 5. For that ... that the assessee had no explanation to offer in this regard and a sum of ₹ 35,87,244/- was added as unexplained investment in stock within the meaning of section 69 of the Act and charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee

Bir Babu Pandey, Gopalganj vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Siwan

ITA 223/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 40Section 69A

profit of the appellant which also consists of the transactions recorded in the cash book. Further, no evidence of excess stock or any other unexplained investment was found during the survey. The sales were duly reflected in the GST return filed by the appellant. It can also not be denied ... book profit of the appellant which also consist of transaction recorded in cash book. Further, no evidence of excess stock or any other unexplained investment was found during the survey. The sales were duly reflected in the GST return filed by the appellant. It can also not be denied that

Sh. Ambrish Sharma Prop. M/S Punjab Handloom, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 461/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 461/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Ambrish Sharma, Prop. M/s Punjab Handloom, Near Petrol Pump, Link Road, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AYVPS7324Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR स

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 68Section 69ASection 69B

surrendered certain amount on account of addition made to factory building Assessing Officer was of view that said amount was to be considered as unexplained investment under section 69B and was subject to taxation as per provisions of section 115BBE - It was noted that assessee had treated said surrendered amount ... surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables, stating that same was to be taxed as business income – Assessing Officer, however, treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69A and 69B and charged same to tax asper provisions of section 115BBE - Whether since during survey proceedings, assesse was confronted

ACIT, Central Circle, Patiala vs. M/S Gazebo Constructions Private Limited, Patiala

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 674/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 674/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S Gazebo Construction Central Circle, बनाम Private Limited, Patiala 616-A, Gurbax Colony, Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccg8052F अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit,Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 69C

thereby making an addition of Rs. 4,13,52,393/- (comprising Rs. 4,09,95,040/- on account of unexplained investment and Rs. 3,57,353/- on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act) for the year under consideration. c) Subsequently, the assessee contested the additions

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 632/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

come forth with any explanation regarding the source of cash deposits of Rs.2,33,88,635/-, the A.O. held the same as its unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who, taking cognizance of the fact

Tours5 Com, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

ITA 630/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Dipika De, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 906/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: The Ld.Ao.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

recorded in the body of the assessment order dated 18.12.2018: “so it is crystal clear that it is an unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the assessee in the F.Y. 2013-14 and concealed income by the assessee. So Rs. 23,10,010/- is added with

Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Ajmer

ITA 429/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 429 to 431/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19 | Dargah Hazrat Meeran Sahib | | Taragarh Hill Ajmer, | Ajmer. | बनाम Income Tax Office, | Vs. | Ward-1(1), | Ajmer. | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAAAD5184H अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv., Shri Priyesh Kasliwal, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kulhari, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

total income of the assessee, by passing the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, making addition in respect of unexplained investment, while attracting provisions of section 69 of the Act. So far as third assessment year 2018-19, is concerned, vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed