https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777879 ITAT, Surat (AT) dismissed the appeal, finding the assessee failed to produce credible, independent evidence that the disputed bank account and credits were caused by identity theft or forgery. The Tribunal held s.68 was attracted, the onus to prove source of deposits remained on the person in whose name deposits appeared, and absence of evidence that amounts were not assessable income justified departmental treatment as the assessee's income. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2025 08:16:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777879 ITAT, Surat (AT) dismissed the appeal, finding the assessee failed to produce credible, independent evidence that the disputed bank account and credits were caused by identity theft or forgery. The Tribunal held s.68 was attracted, the onus to prove source of deposits remained on the person in whose name deposits appeared, and absence of evidence that amounts were not assessable income justified departmental treatment as the assessee's income. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777879