https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337806 An addition under section 69 for alleged unexplained investment in a shop could not be sustained where the seized paper was unsigned, the supporting material did not reliably establish any cash payment over and above the documented consideration, and third-party statements were inconsistent. The Tribunal also noted that denial of cross-examination and Rule 46A could not justify confirmation of the addition on these facts, because no additional evidence had been improperly introduced before the first appellate authority. The addition was therefore deleted, applying the principle that unexplained investment cannot rest on conjecture without credible proof of actual payment by the assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337806 An addition under section 69 for alleged unexplained investment in a shop could not be sustained where the seized paper was unsigned, the supporting material did not reliably establish any cash payment over and above the documented consideration, and third-party statements were inconsistent. The Tribunal also noted that denial of cross-examination and Rule 46A could not justify confirmation of the addition on these facts, because no additional evidence had been improperly introduced before the first appellate authority. The addition was therefore deleted, applying the principle that unexplained investment cannot rest on conjecture without credible proof of actual payment by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337806