https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365388 The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying the rule of probability to delete unproven additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. It directed a limited remand for the Assessing Officer to consider specific proof of deposits from the public and agents presented by the assessee. The Court emphasized the necessity of proving the source of deposits to prevent undisclosed income and upheld the tax liability for unproven additions. The judgment favored the Revenue, highlighting the importance of verifiable evidence in tax assessments to combat tax evasion. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:00:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365388 The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in applying the rule of probability to delete unproven additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. It directed a limited remand for the Assessing Officer to consider specific proof of deposits from the public and agents presented by the assessee. The Court emphasized the necessity of proving the source of deposits to prevent undisclosed income and upheld the tax liability for unproven additions. The judgment favored the Revenue, highlighting the importance of verifiable evidence in tax assessments to combat tax evasion. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365388