<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (9) TMI 770 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427825</link>
    <description>An unsecured loan was treated as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 because the assessee failed to prove the lender&#039;s identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. The reassessment relied on Investigation Wing material linking the lender to an accommodation-entry network, and the Assessing Officer&#039;s verification notice under section 133(6) was not complied with. The assessee also could not produce the lender or supporting books and records despite opportunity. Bank entries and an affidavit were insufficient to rebut the adverse material. The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee did not discharge the burden of proof.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Sep 2022 07:58:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 770 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427825</link>
      <description>An unsecured loan was treated as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 because the assessee failed to prove the lender&#039;s identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. The reassessment relied on Investigation Wing material linking the lender to an accommodation-entry network, and the Assessing Officer&#039;s verification notice under section 133(6) was not complied with. The assessee also could not produce the lender or supporting books and records despite opportunity. Bank entries and an affidavit were insufficient to rebut the adverse material. The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee did not discharge the burden of proof.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>