https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755738 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 17 lacs made under section 68 for unexplained credit. The tribunal held that the deposit received on 13.11.2016 from Samsun Paul Gohil was fully explained as a genuine transaction through banking channels via RTGS. The source was already known to the department, making the addition under section 68 inappropriate since such additions require unexplained sources. The AO wrongly relied solely on investigation wing information without proper inquiry, and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without evidence of accommodation entry. en-us Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2024 06:54:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755738 ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 17 lacs made under section 68 for unexplained credit. The tribunal held that the deposit received on 13.11.2016 from Samsun Paul Gohil was fully explained as a genuine transaction through banking channels via RTGS. The source was already known to the department, making the addition under section 68 inappropriate since such additions require unexplained sources. The AO wrongly relied solely on investigation wing information without proper inquiry, and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without evidence of accommodation entry. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755738