https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262026 Investments treated as unexplained were not deleted on the basis of a new HUF source explanation raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee had not advanced that claim before the assessing authority or the first appellate authority, and the documents filed at the Tribunal were additional evidence without any Rule 29 application. A bank statement showing withdrawals, without supporting accounts or balance sheets for the relevant years, was held insufficient to prove that the HUF had funds available at the time of investment. The additions were therefore sustained. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:54:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262026 Investments treated as unexplained were not deleted on the basis of a new HUF source explanation raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee had not advanced that claim before the assessing authority or the first appellate authority, and the documents filed at the Tribunal were additional evidence without any Rule 29 application. A bank statement showing withdrawals, without supporting accounts or balance sheets for the relevant years, was held insufficient to prove that the HUF had funds available at the time of investment. The additions were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262026