https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791354 A mere wrong invocation of section 68 instead of section 69C did not, by itself, invalidate the addition where the assessee was informed of the factual basis and no prejudice was shown; section 292B protected the proceedings from such technical defect. On merits, the amount could not be sustained without proper proof that it was a fresh credit or unexplained expenditure, as the material indicated a cheque issued towards interest liability in a running loan account rather than a new unexplained inflow. The substantive tax issue was therefore remitted for limited factual verification. en-us Thu, 07 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 07:13:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791354 A mere wrong invocation of section 68 instead of section 69C did not, by itself, invalidate the addition where the assessee was informed of the factual basis and no prejudice was shown; section 292B protected the proceedings from such technical defect. On merits, the amount could not be sustained without proper proof that it was a fresh credit or unexplained expenditure, as the material indicated a cheque issued towards interest liability in a running loan account rather than a new unexplained inflow. The substantive tax issue was therefore remitted for limited factual verification. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791354