https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465365 Whether share application money/share capital could be added as unexplained cash credit under s.68 based merely on investigation inputs alleging accommodation entries was the dominant issue. The ITAT held that the AO failed to place any cogent material to dislodge the assessee's documentary evidence and explanations, and the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing confirmations and supporting records establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Discrepancies regarding non-availability at addresses and differences in investment amounts were found reconciled. The AO's failure to confront the assessee with non-service/non-response to s.133(6) notices was treated as improper, and unrebutted evidence could not justify adverse inference. The deletion of the s.68 addition was upheld and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 22:30:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465365 Whether share application money/share capital could be added as unexplained cash credit under s.68 based merely on investigation inputs alleging accommodation entries was the dominant issue. The ITAT held that the AO failed to place any cogent material to dislodge the assessee's documentary evidence and explanations, and the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing confirmations and supporting records establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness. Discrepancies regarding non-availability at addresses and differences in investment amounts were found reconciled. The AO's failure to confront the assessee with non-service/non-response to s.133(6) notices was treated as improper, and unrebutted evidence could not justify adverse inference. The deletion of the s.68 addition was upheld and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465365