https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93504 ITAT affirmed reopening under s.148, holding that credible information and unexplained credits warranted assessment under s.68; the assessee's failure to furnish demanded balance-sheet and specific bank statements constituted intentional omission, rendering entries unexplained and justifying additions. The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)'s view that s.153C applied, endorsing s.148 as the proper provision, and declined to admit fresh submissions not pressed before it. ITAT reiterated that books showing loans/borrowings must satisfy s.68 even if squared up within the year, and accepted doctrines such as lifting the corporate veil and substance-over-form where accommodation entries or sham transactions are suspected. Selection for full scrutiny under CBDT criteria was held permissible. en-us Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:18:30 +0530 Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:18:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93504 ITAT affirmed reopening under s.148, holding that credible information and unexplained credits warranted assessment under s.68; the assessee's failure to furnish demanded balance-sheet and specific bank statements constituted intentional omission, rendering entries unexplained and justifying additions. The Tribunal rejected CIT(A)'s view that s.153C applied, endorsing s.148 as the proper provision, and declined to admit fresh submissions not pressed before it. ITAT reiterated that books showing loans/borrowings must satisfy s.68 even if squared up within the year, and accepted doctrines such as lifting the corporate veil and substance-over-form where accommodation entries or sham transactions are suspected. Selection for full scrutiny under CBDT criteria was held permissible. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:18:30 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93504