https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259980 In an alleged unexplained investment case, the Revenue had to establish a reliable nexus between the seized agreement, the broker's statement and the assessee before any addition could stand. The High Court accepted the Tribunal's finding that the material did not prove the agreement was for the assessee's benefit, and that the recorded purchase price was not displaced by contrary evidence. It also accepted the drawal of adverse inference where a relevant vendor-side statement was not produced. The commentary therefore confirms that additions for undisclosed investment depend on cogent proof, and that section 114(g) may support an adverse inference when relevant evidence is withheld. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2015 06:33:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259980 In an alleged unexplained investment case, the Revenue had to establish a reliable nexus between the seized agreement, the broker's statement and the assessee before any addition could stand. The High Court accepted the Tribunal's finding that the material did not prove the agreement was for the assessee's benefit, and that the recorded purchase price was not displaced by contrary evidence. It also accepted the drawal of adverse inference where a relevant vendor-side statement was not produced. The commentary therefore confirms that additions for undisclosed investment depend on cogent proof, and that section 114(g) may support an adverse inference when relevant evidence is withheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259980