https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403975 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the revenue failed to prove unexplained investments under section 69B of the IT Act. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the addition of Rs. 6,50,000 as unexplained investment, as the sellers' statements did not mention the assessee and there was no corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the revenue's failure to establish investments exceeding the amounts in the sale deed, ultimately deleting the addition and allowing the appeal. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:01:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403975 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the revenue failed to prove unexplained investments under section 69B of the IT Act. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the addition of Rs. 6,50,000 as unexplained investment, as the sellers' statements did not mention the assessee and there was no corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the revenue's failure to establish investments exceeding the amounts in the sale deed, ultimately deleting the addition and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403975