https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10624 The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's findings and conclusions. The Tribunal upheld additions to Smt. Bimla Devi's accounts due to failure to prove the source of deposits and inconsistencies in statements. The burden of proof for investments and gifts was on the assessee, who failed to provide credible evidence. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedent and rejected claims of colorable device for capital formation. Assessments of income from undisclosed sources were upheld, and the issue of interest levy was remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal's decision was supported by detailed analysis and legal precedents. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10624 The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's findings and conclusions. The Tribunal upheld additions to Smt. Bimla Devi's accounts due to failure to prove the source of deposits and inconsistencies in statements. The burden of proof for investments and gifts was on the assessee, who failed to provide credible evidence. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedent and rejected claims of colorable device for capital formation. Assessments of income from undisclosed sources were upheld, and the issue of interest levy was remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal's decision was supported by detailed analysis and legal precedents. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10624