https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169102 The appellant challenged the assessment of alleged total income for Assessment Year 2008-09, claiming arbitrary additions were made without proper consideration of evidence. The CIT (A) upheld additions of unexplained refundable security deposit and loans due to lack of satisfactory explanations from the appellant. Despite evidence furnished, crucial points were not addressed, leading to concerns about the genuineness of transactions. The burden of proof under section 68 was deemed challenging due to business closure and unavailability of employees. Illegal additions were made without proper inquiries, prompting a reassessment with adequate opportunity for the appellant. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision, emphasizing fair consideration and due hearing. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:35:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169102 The appellant challenged the assessment of alleged total income for Assessment Year 2008-09, claiming arbitrary additions were made without proper consideration of evidence. The CIT (A) upheld additions of unexplained refundable security deposit and loans due to lack of satisfactory explanations from the appellant. Despite evidence furnished, crucial points were not addressed, leading to concerns about the genuineness of transactions. The burden of proof under section 68 was deemed challenging due to business closure and unavailability of employees. Illegal additions were made without proper inquiries, prompting a reassessment with adequate opportunity for the appellant. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision, emphasizing fair consideration and due hearing. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169102