https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239664 The HC held that the appellant had sufficiently discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of the share sale transaction under s. 68 of the I.T. Act. The AO's addition of the entire sale amount as undisclosed income was not justified due to lack of evidence. The shares were legitimately held and sold through proper channels, and the sale proceeds were received by demand draft. The court relied on precedent establishing that the Department must prove undisclosed income with proper evidence, and the assessee cannot be compelled to produce third-party evidence. The addition of Rs. 19,51,038 was deleted, and the transaction was held to be genuine. The decision was against the Revenue. en-us Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239664 The HC held that the appellant had sufficiently discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of the share sale transaction under s. 68 of the I.T. Act. The AO's addition of the entire sale amount as undisclosed income was not justified due to lack of evidence. The shares were legitimately held and sold through proper channels, and the sale proceeds were received by demand draft. The court relied on precedent establishing that the Department must prove undisclosed income with proper evidence, and the assessee cannot be compelled to produce third-party evidence. The addition of Rs. 19,51,038 was deleted, and the transaction was held to be genuine. The decision was against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239664