https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306713 The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the Rs. 5,18,220 bogus capital gain and the Rs. 6,09,000 unaccounted money for property purchase. The ITAT referred to a similar case, directing further examination by the assessing officer and allowing cross-examination of witnesses by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) based on lack of evidence and the onus being on the department to prove undisclosed investment, following the doctrine of stare decisis. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Apr 2023 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306713 The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO regarding the Rs. 5,18,220 bogus capital gain and the Rs. 6,09,000 unaccounted money for property purchase. The ITAT referred to a similar case, directing further examination by the assessing officer and allowing cross-examination of witnesses by the assessee. The tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) based on lack of evidence and the onus being on the department to prove undisclosed investment, following the doctrine of stare decisis. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306713