https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469413 Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was upheld because the assessee failed to show any legal infirmity in the recorded reasons or to dislodge the material forming the basis of reopening. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed. The addition for unexplained investment under section 69 was deleted because the assessee substantiated the share purchase through bank statements, balance sheet, salary details, ledger accounts, contract notes and broker records, and the payment was traceable to a corresponding receipt from a related company. In the absence of rebuttal by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the investment was explained and could not be treated as unexplained on mere suspicion. en-us Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2026 21:37:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469413 Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 was upheld because the assessee failed to show any legal infirmity in the recorded reasons or to dislodge the material forming the basis of reopening. The challenge to jurisdiction therefore failed. The addition for unexplained investment under section 69 was deleted because the assessee substantiated the share purchase through bank statements, balance sheet, salary details, ledger accounts, contract notes and broker records, and the payment was traceable to a corresponding receipt from a related company. In the absence of rebuttal by the Revenue, the Tribunal held that the investment was explained and could not be treated as unexplained on mere suspicion. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469413