https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424777 The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to reasons such as misplacement of the order and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The addition of unexplained investment under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was partially retained by the Ld. CIT(A) but ultimately set aside by the ITAT. The ITAT found the appellant's explanation regarding the source of the opening capital to be genuine, referencing past earnings and employment. Citing a Delhi Tribunal case, the ITAT concluded that the addition of the opening capital as unexplained income could not be upheld, leading to the allowance of the appeal by the assessee. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2022 09:34:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424777 The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to reasons such as misplacement of the order and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The addition of unexplained investment under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was partially retained by the Ld. CIT(A) but ultimately set aside by the ITAT. The ITAT found the appellant's explanation regarding the source of the opening capital to be genuine, referencing past earnings and employment. Citing a Delhi Tribunal case, the ITAT concluded that the addition of the opening capital as unexplained income could not be upheld, leading to the allowance of the appeal by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424777