https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14028 The Madras High Court noted that an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act could not succeed because the dispute centred on whether the impugned sum was a genuine transaction or a bogus entry, a pure question of fact. As the assessee failed to produce the material and confirmatory evidence earlier directed, the finding that the amount constituted income in the assessee's hands was not disturbed. The Court further stated that rule 6DD(j) had no application in the absence of supporting evidence. No substantial question of law was found to arise, and the addition was upheld. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:47:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14028 The Madras High Court noted that an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act could not succeed because the dispute centred on whether the impugned sum was a genuine transaction or a bogus entry, a pure question of fact. As the assessee failed to produce the material and confirmatory evidence earlier directed, the finding that the amount constituted income in the assessee's hands was not disturbed. The Court further stated that rule 6DD(j) had no application in the absence of supporting evidence. No substantial question of law was found to arise, and the addition was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14028