https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353133 The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims regarding business/trading activities and the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 56,30,000 under section 69 as unexplained investment due to lack of documentary evidence. The denial of set-off for the loss against the addition under section 69 was also affirmed, as per legal provisions. The appellant's inability to produce necessary documents and lack of supporting evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with legal requirements and providing proper documentation. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2017 08:04:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353133 The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims regarding business/trading activities and the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 56,30,000 under section 69 as unexplained investment due to lack of documentary evidence. The denial of set-off for the loss against the addition under section 69 was also affirmed, as per legal provisions. The appellant's inability to produce necessary documents and lack of supporting evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with legal requirements and providing proper documentation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 08 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353133