https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783556 Where unsecured loans were treated as unexplained cash credits under s.68, the Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the primary onus by furnishing creditor confirmations/affidavits, bank statements evidencing availability of funds, and routing of transactions through banking channels; absent any independent enquiry by the AO (including failure to issue summons/notices under s.133(6)) and in the absence of material showing accommodation entries, addition based on mere suspicion (including low returned income or cash deposits in creditors' accounts) was impermissible; the s.68 second proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2022 was inapplicable to AY 2016-17. The s.68 addition was deleted. For unverifiable expenses, an ad hoc disallowance was restricted from 20% to 5%. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783556 Where unsecured loans were treated as unexplained cash credits under s.68, the Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the primary onus by furnishing creditor confirmations/affidavits, bank statements evidencing availability of funds, and routing of transactions through banking channels; absent any independent enquiry by the AO (including failure to issue summons/notices under s.133(6)) and in the absence of material showing accommodation entries, addition based on mere suspicion (including low returned income or cash deposits in creditors' accounts) was impermissible; the s.68 second proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2022 was inapplicable to AY 2016-17. The s.68 addition was deleted. For unverifiable expenses, an ad hoc disallowance was restricted from 20% to 5%. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783556