https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177157 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions of Rs. 27,90,000 for unexplained property investment and Rs. 2,87,998 for unexplained jewellery investment. It emphasized the revenue's failure to prove the investments were made by the assessee, citing the absence of concrete evidence linking the items to undisclosed income. The judgment highlighted the necessity for substantiating claims of unexplained investments with corroborative evidence, as possession alone is insufficient to justify additions under the Income-tax Act. en-us Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177157 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions of Rs. 27,90,000 for unexplained property investment and Rs. 2,87,998 for unexplained jewellery investment. It emphasized the revenue's failure to prove the investments were made by the assessee, citing the absence of concrete evidence linking the items to undisclosed income. The judgment highlighted the necessity for substantiating claims of unexplained investments with corroborative evidence, as possession alone is insufficient to justify additions under the Income-tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177157