https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423903 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It concluded that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence of bogus transactions or collusion, and the assessee had adequately demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions through documentary evidence. The Tribunal reiterated that suspicion alone could not override documented proof, and the principles of natural justice required that the assessee be given an opportunity for cross-examination, which was not provided. As a result, the addition of Rs. 18,54,800 under section 68 was deleted, and the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) was allowed. en-us Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:36:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423903 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It concluded that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence of bogus transactions or collusion, and the assessee had adequately demonstrated the genuineness of the transactions through documentary evidence. The Tribunal reiterated that suspicion alone could not override documented proof, and the principles of natural justice required that the assessee be given an opportunity for cross-examination, which was not provided. As a result, the addition of Rs. 18,54,800 under section 68 was deleted, and the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38) was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423903