https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68259 The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the lower authorities' orders rejecting the application for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to provide concrete evidence supporting the allegation of maintaining duplicate accounts. Discrepancies in the appellant's accounts were deemed insufficient to establish the existence of duplicate accounts, emphasizing the lack of substantial proof to justify the decision. The burden of proof was on the authorities, who relied on conjectures and surmises rather than solid evidence, leading to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:03:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68259 The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the lower authorities' orders rejecting the application for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to provide concrete evidence supporting the allegation of maintaining duplicate accounts. Discrepancies in the appellant's accounts were deemed insufficient to establish the existence of duplicate accounts, emphasizing the lack of substantial proof to justify the decision. The burden of proof was on the authorities, who relied on conjectures and surmises rather than solid evidence, leading to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Aug 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68259