https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246968 The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- as undisclosed investment was not sustainable due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the improper attribution of the seized diary to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of undisclosed income and upheld the principles of burden of proof and legal presumption in favor of the assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:33:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246968 The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- as undisclosed investment was not sustainable due to the lack of conclusive evidence and the improper attribution of the seized diary to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to substantiate allegations of undisclosed income and upheld the principles of burden of proof and legal presumption in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246968