BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

459 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,343Delhi1,263Chennai459Jaipur432Ahmedabad352Kolkata320Bangalore282Hyderabad212Chandigarh146Indore138Pune133Rajkot112Amritsar104Surat95Raipur74Visakhapatnam73Nagpur71Agra61Guwahati56Cochin51Lucknow41Jodhpur29Patna26Ranchi17Cuttack15Allahabad10Dehradun9Jabalpur5Varanasi5Telangana5Karnataka3SC3Calcutta2Orissa2Panaji2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 14880Section 14766Addition to Income66Section 143(3)56Section 13250Section 153C38Section 153A32Section 69A22Reassessment21Section 69

R.SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1466/CHNY/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1466/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Mr.R.Srinivasan Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 103, Ashok Nagar Main Road Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Corporate Circle-I(2) Chennai-600 024. Chennai. Pan : Aaips 8386H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 132

unexplained 9 investments of the assessee. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer in the remand report are as under:- “8.1 As submitted earlier assessee has preferred present appeal for regular scrutiny assessment for assessment year 1996-97 . it is the contention of assessee that credits in five bank accounts found in premises of assessee are transfers from bank account

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 459 · Page 1 of 23

...
19
Disallowance16
Unexplained Investment12
ITAT Chennai
18 Nov 2025
AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

unexplained investment. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting a significant portion of the addition by attributing it to parents, VDIS, gifts, and drawings. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on jewellery found at relatives' premises, VDIS disclosure, gifts, and drawings was justified

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

unexplained investment is applicable only in the case when if the ITA Nos.754 to 756/2015 :- 11 -: amount found during the search is surrendered and tax with interest is paid and the assessee had disclosed the manner in which he had derived undisclosed income. In the present case, admittedly, assessee had only paid taxes partly and all the assessed income

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

unexplained investment is applicable only in the case when if the ITA Nos.754 to 756/2015 :- 11 -: amount found during the search is surrendered and tax with interest is paid and the assessee had disclosed the manner in which he had derived undisclosed income. In the present case, admittedly, assessee had only paid taxes partly and all the assessed income

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

unexplained investment is applicable only in the case when if the ITA Nos.754 to 756/2015 :- 11 -: amount found during the search is surrendered and tax with interest is paid and the assessee had disclosed the manner in which he had derived undisclosed income. In the present case, admittedly, assessee had only paid taxes partly and all the assessed income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI , CHENNAI vs. SHRI VIVEK PAPISETTY, CHENNAI

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 405/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.405/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.19/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.405/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

unexplained investment was made by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2015- 16 only. 2.1 Having confirmed the nature of transaction, identity of payer and payee, modes of payment and evidentiary value of loose sheet, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on the ground that there are no dates mentioned

SRIDEVI RAVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 2716/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2716 To 2718/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt. Sridevi Ravi, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1, Srinivasa Pillai Street, Non-Corporate Ward-14(2) West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai-600 033. Pan: Aqbps9220K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu,Sr.ARFor Respondent: 02.12.2020
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

investments. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mr. Girish V.Yalakkishettar vs. ITO, Hubli in ITA No.354 & 355/Bang/2019. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) have brought out facts deposits has been accepted

SRIDEVI RAVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 2717/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2716 To 2718/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt. Sridevi Ravi, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1, Srinivasa Pillai Street, Non-Corporate Ward-14(2) West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai-600 033. Pan: Aqbps9220K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu,Sr.ARFor Respondent: 02.12.2020
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

investments. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mr. Girish V.Yalakkishettar vs. ITO, Hubli in ITA No.354 & 355/Bang/2019. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) have brought out facts deposits has been accepted

SRIDEVI RAVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all

ITA 2718/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2716 To 2718/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt. Sridevi Ravi, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1, Srinivasa Pillai Street, Non-Corporate Ward-14(2) West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai-600 033. Pan: Aqbps9220K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Chandrababu,Sr.ARFor Respondent: 02.12.2020
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

investments. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mr. Girish V.Yalakkishettar vs. ITO, Hubli in ITA No.354 & 355/Bang/2019. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) have brought out facts deposits has been accepted

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 306/CHNY/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

unexplained investment shall be deemed to be income of the assessee… Regarding the period of construction, the assessing officer shall ascertain from the current account maintained by the assessee for drawal of money for the purpose of construction and also from bills and vouchers pertaining to construction of these buildings.” 5.2 As per the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 308/CHNY/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

unexplained investment shall be deemed to be income of the assessee… Regarding the period of construction, the assessing officer shall ascertain from the current account maintained by the assessee for drawal of money for the purpose of construction and also from bills and vouchers pertaining to construction of these buildings.” 5.2 As per the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 307/CHNY/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

unexplained investment shall be deemed to be income of the assessee… Regarding the period of construction, the assessing officer shall ascertain from the current account maintained by the assessee for drawal of money for the purpose of construction and also from bills and vouchers pertaining to construction of these buildings.” 5.2 As per the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 309/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel
Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

unexplained investment shall be deemed to be income of the assessee… Regarding the period of construction, the assessing officer shall ascertain from the current account maintained by the assessee for drawal of money for the purpose of construction and also from bills and vouchers pertaining to construction of these buildings.” 5.2 As per the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2851/CHNY/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2853/CHNY/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2850/CHNY/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2911/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Unexplained - - - - - - 73,25,679 investment in immovable property 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Vide separate orders dated 19.12.2023, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the assessment orders and sustaining the additions made by the AO. 9. Aggrieved with the orders of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee

M/S VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SALEM vs. CIT (APPEAL)-18 , CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 724/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. V. Balaji, CA
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

unexplained investment in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 10. The assessee has relied upon the following judicial precedents in support of their arguments. The case laws relied :-15-: ITA. Nos: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are discussed as under: a) Principal CIT V. Abhisar Buildwell

M/S VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SALEM vs. CIT (APPEAL)-18 , CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. V. Balaji, CA
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

unexplained investment in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. 10. The assessee has relied upon the following judicial precedents in support of their arguments. The case laws relied :-15-: ITA. Nos: 723 & 724/Chny/2022 upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are discussed as under: a) Principal CIT V. Abhisar Buildwell

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JAGANNATHAN SEKAT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the of Rs.51.75 crores made by way of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the of Rs.51.75 crores made by way of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act on merits. We first take up the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to Act on merits. We first take up the legal issue of jurisdiction