https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781271 ITAT (Mumbai) remanded the issue of a Rs.20,00,000 unexplained investment to the jurisdictional AO for verification, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate payment despite claiming co-ownership with spouse. The tribunal found prior case law relied upon inapplicable because, unlike those cases, payments here were not demonstrated or accepted by the AO. Although the assessee was given an opportunity to file payment details, bank entries and charts, she did not do so; the tribunal also noted absence of clarity on the spouse's position and directed further factual enquiry by the AO. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781271 ITAT (Mumbai) remanded the issue of a Rs.20,00,000 unexplained investment to the jurisdictional AO for verification, holding that the assessee failed to substantiate payment despite claiming co-ownership with spouse. The tribunal found prior case law relied upon inapplicable because, unlike those cases, payments here were not demonstrated or accepted by the AO. Although the assessee was given an opportunity to file payment details, bank entries and charts, she did not do so; the tribunal also noted absence of clarity on the spouse's position and directed further factual enquiry by the AO. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781271