https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465806 Whether advances received were liable to addition under s. 68 as unexplained cash credits turned on proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, and the evidentiary value of third-party material. The Tribunal held that reliance on a former director's statement recorded prior to the relevant transaction, without offering cross-examination, was misconceived and violated principles of natural justice. Non-compliance with s. 133(6) notices and low income of the lender could not, by themselves, justify addition, particularly where the AO made no field enquiries and adduced no evidence that funds originated from the assessee. As the assessee produced confirmations, bank statements, returns and financials establishing the transaction, the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld and the Revenue's appeal dismissed. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 17:09:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465806 Whether advances received were liable to addition under s. 68 as unexplained cash credits turned on proof of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, and the evidentiary value of third-party material. The Tribunal held that reliance on a former director's statement recorded prior to the relevant transaction, without offering cross-examination, was misconceived and violated principles of natural justice. Non-compliance with s. 133(6) notices and low income of the lender could not, by themselves, justify addition, particularly where the AO made no field enquiries and adduced no evidence that funds originated from the assessee. As the assessee produced confirmations, bank statements, returns and financials establishing the transaction, the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld and the Revenue's appeal dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465806