https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372641 The Tribunal upheld the legality of the CIT (A)'s order, finding that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 under Section 68, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the AO failed to prove the investments were not genuine. It was emphasized that the AO should have provided all materials used against the assessee for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition under Section 68, highlighting the importance of conducting thorough and independent inquiries before making such additions. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2018 23:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372641 The Tribunal upheld the legality of the CIT (A)'s order, finding that the appellant had been given sufficient opportunity to be heard. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000 under Section 68, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the AO failed to prove the investments were not genuine. It was emphasized that the AO should have provided all materials used against the assessee for rebuttal. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition under Section 68, highlighting the importance of conducting thorough and independent inquiries before making such additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372641