https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363526 The High Court condoned the default in representation, restoring the appeal and application previously dismissed for default. The bogus claim of investment was noted, with the Assessing Officer seeking genuineness of share applicants. Despite opportunities, the alleged applicants did not appear, leading to unsatisfactory explanations. The burden of proof was on the assessee, who failed to establish identities and genuineness. The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings of unsatisfactory explanations, resulting in appeal dismissal for lack of substantial legal questions. No costs were awarded, emphasizing the importance of genuine explanations and burden of proof under the Income Tax Act. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363526 The High Court condoned the default in representation, restoring the appeal and application previously dismissed for default. The bogus claim of investment was noted, with the Assessing Officer seeking genuineness of share applicants. Despite opportunities, the alleged applicants did not appear, leading to unsatisfactory explanations. The burden of proof was on the assessee, who failed to establish identities and genuineness. The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings of unsatisfactory explanations, resulting in appeal dismissal for lack of substantial legal questions. No costs were awarded, emphasizing the importance of genuine explanations and burden of proof under the Income Tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363526