https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753239 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had treated certain loan transactions as suspicious due to immediate credits of exact amounts few days before loans were given to assessee. Though assessee claimed credits were sourced from family members/HUF, confirmations were lacking. The ITAT held that when assessee establishes creditor identity and Revenue accepts genuineness of part transactions, remaining transactions cannot be disbelieved on mere suspicion. Revenue must provide substantive evidence beyond coincidental timing of credits and loans, especially when partial transactions from same creditor are accepted as genuine. en-us Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 May 2024 08:31:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753239 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans. The CIT(A) had treated certain loan transactions as suspicious due to immediate credits of exact amounts few days before loans were given to assessee. Though assessee claimed credits were sourced from family members/HUF, confirmations were lacking. The ITAT held that when assessee establishes creditor identity and Revenue accepts genuineness of part transactions, remaining transactions cannot be disbelieved on mere suspicion. Revenue must provide substantive evidence beyond coincidental timing of credits and loans, especially when partial transactions from same creditor are accepted as genuine. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753239