https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776713 ITAT DELHI - AT upheld the CIT(A) and AO, sustaining addition under section 68: credits treated as unexplained income because the assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investor/loan companies. Tribunal found primary documents (ITRs, PAN, RoC, bank statements, confirmations) insufficient, and non-production of lender representatives indicated concealment. Reliance on SC precedents (NRA Iron & Steel, NDR Promoters) supported that mere documents do not discharge onus; prior authorities also permit inference of taxable receipts where satisfactory explanation is absent. Addition under s.68 therefore stands sustained. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776713 ITAT DELHI - AT upheld the CIT(A) and AO, sustaining addition under section 68: credits treated as unexplained income because the assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investor/loan companies. Tribunal found primary documents (ITRs, PAN, RoC, bank statements, confirmations) insufficient, and non-production of lender representatives indicated concealment. Reliance on SC precedents (NRA Iron & Steel, NDR Promoters) supported that mere documents do not discharge onus; prior authorities also permit inference of taxable receipts where satisfactory explanation is absent. Addition under s.68 therefore stands sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776713