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.

320 results for “reassessment”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,343Delhi1,263Chennai459Jaipur432Ahmedabad353Kolkata320Bangalore282Hyderabad212Chandigarh151Indore138Pune138Rajkot112Amritsar104Surat95Raipur75Nagpur73Visakhapatnam73Agra61Guwahati56Cochin52Lucknow41Jodhpur29Patna26Ranchi17Cuttack15Allahabad10Dehradun9Jabalpur5Varanasi5Telangana5Karnataka3SC3Calcutta2Orissa2Panaji2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 147141Section 148119Section 6896Addition to Income84Section 143(3)81Reassessment52Section 26345Unexplained Cash Credit36Section 25035

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. PREM LAL JAIN, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1142/KOL/2012[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 1994-95

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Uday Kumar Sarkar, JCIT, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.M Surana,Advocate, ld.AR
Section 147Section 69

reassessment). Copies of the details of investments were again filed in the course of appellate proceedings. It was submitted that the AO has repeated the very same additions on exactly identical grounds that the source of these investments were not explained. It was submitted that while doing so the AO has ignored the details filed before him as well

SHRI FATEH CHAND CHINDALIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 40(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Showing 1–20 of 320 · Page 1 of 16

...
Section 13134
Reopening of Assessment28
Section 143(2)27
ITA 185/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.185/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Fateh Chand Chindalia........................................………...…..…Appellant 4A, Sayed Sally Street, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adfpc9919G] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata......................................................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 24, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 When The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3)/147 On 26.12.2018 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

unexplained investment. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained the source of the aforesaid investment in the shares and the Assessing

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1363/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1367/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1552/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1551/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1555/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1364/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1554/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

SHREE RAMCHANDRA INGOT INDIA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-4(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed and all six appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1365/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita No.1363/Kol/2025: Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the order passed by the ld CIT(A) to the extent confirming the additions and rejecting the grounds of appeal is bad in facts and law.” 4. Ground Nos.1,5 & 6 of appeal are general in nature, hence requires no separate adjudication

ALOK KUNDU,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O WD - 47(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 597/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unexplained investment that could be added in the hands of the assessee. He further argued that the Learned AO had passed an independent speaking order by disposing off the objections of the assessee for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment as has been held by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Drivshafts reported

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. ALEMBIC MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue fails

ITA 1826/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Central Cir-1(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Alembic Merchants Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aacca 0918Q Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 68

unexplained investment in construction. It is the plea of the assessee that when no addition is made on the grounds on which re-assessment proceedings are initiated then no other addition can be made in such reassessment

ITO, WD-48(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANTOSH KUMAR SUREKA, HOWRAH

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

ITA 998/KOL/2015[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.998/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1989-90) I.T.O, Wd-48(3), Kolkata Vs. Santosh Kumar Sureka 105/34/1, Girish Ghosh Road, 1St Floor, 3, Govt. Place(West), Liluah, Howrah – 711 204. Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Amaps 1884 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Respondent By:S.M. Surana, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 1989-90, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(A)-14, Kolkata, In Appeal No.92/Cit(A)-Xxx/Cir-46/2011-12, Dated 30.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147/143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 31.03.2005. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kol Erred In Concluding That The Reopening Of Assessment Of The Appellant Itself Was Bad In Law & The Assessment Is Ab Initio Void On That Score Alone. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kol Erred In Concluding That The Addition Of Rs.29,11,337/- Made By The Assessing Officer Towards Unexplained Investment By The Assessee, In Purchases In Prop. Concern M/S Sureka Castings &Engg. Co., Before The Ownership Of The Prop. Concern Changed Hands On 05.09.1988 When It Was Purchased By Shree G.S. Sureka, Was Not Justified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kol Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,91,133/- Made By The Assessing Officer, Towards Profit Out Of The Supply Of Goods To Railways At An Estimated Rate Of 10% Of Total Value Of The Order.”

For Appellant: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. CITFor Respondent: S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 144Section 147

reassessment proceedings, the assessee has not explained the source of this investment of Rs.29,11,337/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added back the entire amount to the total income of the assessee, as income from unexplained

SRI UDIT KUMAR DUGAR ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

unexplained investment in construction. It is the plea of the assessee that when no addition is made on the grounds on which re-assessment proceedings are initiated then no other addition can be made in such reassessment

M/S. DEVANSH EXPORTS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 32, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2178/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unexplained investment in construction. It is the plea of the assessee that when no addition is made on the grounds on which re-assessment proceedings are initiated then no other addition can be made in such reassessment

M/S CLASSIC FLOUR AND FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-11(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No. 765 & 766/Kol/2014 are allowed while ITA

ITA 764/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

unexplained investment in construction. It is the plea of the assessee that when no addition is made on the grounds on which re-assessment proceedings are initiated then no other addition can be made in such reassessment

SHRI ADITYA CHINDALIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

Unexplained investments " 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

SMT. LAXMI DEVI CHINDALIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

Unexplained investments " 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 226/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr.Pande, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292Section 69

Unexplained investment towards Mutual Funds and Cash deposits with Bank – As discussed above- Rs.1,05,91,600/- Rs.1,08,75,218/- Less: Deduction under Chapter VIA :- Under Sec.80C on LIP & NSC Rs. 53,267/- Total Income Rs.1,08,21,951/- Rounded Off Rs.1,08,21,950/- 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal before