https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251678 HC held that deletion of addition under s. 68 by the Tribunal was incorrect as the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove the source and nature of unexplained cash credits. Despite production of incorporation details and PAN, the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditors were not established. The court emphasized that companies are controlled by individuals behind them, and mere documentation does not suffice when facts suggest a cover-up. The onus to prove the three facta under s. 68 lies on the assessee. The HC upheld invocation of s. 68 and ruled in favor of the revenue. en-us Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 12:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251678 HC held that deletion of addition under s. 68 by the Tribunal was incorrect as the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove the source and nature of unexplained cash credits. Despite production of incorporation details and PAN, the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditors were not established. The court emphasized that companies are controlled by individuals behind them, and mere documentation does not suffice when facts suggest a cover-up. The onus to prove the three facta under s. 68 lies on the assessee. The HC upheld invocation of s. 68 and ruled in favor of the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251678