https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198019 The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's method of treating each lender separately and calculating the peak unaccounted advances. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s direction to merge different lenders into one for peak amount calculation. It was determined that the peak should be considered lender-wise, with the burden on the assessee to prove the legitimacy of transactions. The Revenue's appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal upheld the AO's orders under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Aug 2018 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198019 The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's method of treating each lender separately and calculating the peak unaccounted advances. The Tribunal rejected the CIT(A)'s direction to merge different lenders into one for peak amount calculation. It was determined that the peak should be considered lender-wise, with the burden on the assessee to prove the legitimacy of transactions. The Revenue's appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal upheld the AO's orders under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198019