https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461315 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding addition u/s 68 for sale of jewelry reported as long-term capital gain. The AO rejected the jewelry sale explanation and treated it as bogus accommodation entry without conducting proper inquiries. The tribunal found that the assessee's name was not in the incriminatory material, being connected only through dummy names. No witness statements specifically mentioned transactions with the assessee. The AO failed to provide evidence based on preponderance of probability to discredit the jewelry sale transaction, relying merely on presumption. The assessee was not required to prove the entries made by the jewelry buyer in their accounts. en-us Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:57:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461315 The ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee regarding addition u/s 68 for sale of jewelry reported as long-term capital gain. The AO rejected the jewelry sale explanation and treated it as bogus accommodation entry without conducting proper inquiries. The tribunal found that the assessee's name was not in the incriminatory material, being connected only through dummy names. No witness statements specifically mentioned transactions with the assessee. The AO failed to provide evidence based on preponderance of probability to discredit the jewelry sale transaction, relying merely on presumption. The assessee was not required to prove the entries made by the jewelry buyer in their accounts. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461315