https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414319 The tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained investment in the purchase of land. The taxpayer successfully argued that the burden of proof lay with the revenue authorities, who failed to provide evidence of the alleged payment. The unresolved family disputes of the seller were crucial in understanding why the balance payment was not completed, leading the tribunal to conclude that the addition was unjustified as it was based solely on presumption without concrete proof. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Nov 2021 09:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414319 The tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained investment in the purchase of land. The taxpayer successfully argued that the burden of proof lay with the revenue authorities, who failed to provide evidence of the alleged payment. The unresolved family disputes of the seller were crucial in understanding why the balance payment was not completed, leading the tribunal to conclude that the addition was unjustified as it was based solely on presumption without concrete proof. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414319