https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467409 Article examines an ITAT-Chandigarh appeal where additions treating long-term capital gains and sale proceeds as unexplained income and denying exemption were reversed because the department failed to produce year-specific material linking the assessee to accommodation-entry providers. The author emphasizes that contemporaneous documentary proof (allotment advices, demat statements, contract notes, STT and banking traces) supported genuineness, while reliance on statements, seizure material from unrelated searches and extrapolation from prior years was insufficient. Applying the preponderance of probabilities and the principle that each assessment year must stand on its own evidence, the additions were not sustained. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:17:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467409 Article examines an ITAT-Chandigarh appeal where additions treating long-term capital gains and sale proceeds as unexplained income and denying exemption were reversed because the department failed to produce year-specific material linking the assessee to accommodation-entry providers. The author emphasizes that contemporaneous documentary proof (allotment advices, demat statements, contract notes, STT and banking traces) supported genuineness, while reliance on statements, seizure material from unrelated searches and extrapolation from prior years was insufficient. Applying the preponderance of probabilities and the principle that each assessment year must stand on its own evidence, the additions were not sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467409