https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448444 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made under section 69 for unexplained investment. The tribunal held that when CIT(A) did not accept the applicability of section 69, revenue cannot tax normal business income without independent corroborative evidence. Following Naresh Khatter HUF precedent, the burden to establish investment lies on revenue. Since revenue failed to produce any direct, indirect or corroborative evidence supporting the addition, and the assessment order treated it as expenditure rather than investment, no addition could be sustained. The CIT(A)'s order was quashed. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jan 2024 16:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448444 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition made under section 69 for unexplained investment. The tribunal held that when CIT(A) did not accept the applicability of section 69, revenue cannot tax normal business income without independent corroborative evidence. Following Naresh Khatter HUF precedent, the burden to establish investment lies on revenue. Since revenue failed to produce any direct, indirect or corroborative evidence supporting the addition, and the assessment order treated it as expenditure rather than investment, no addition could be sustained. The CIT(A)'s order was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448444