https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793880 Section 69 additions for alleged unexplained investment and cash credits were examined against documentary proof showing the source of immovable property payments, bank deposits and cash deposits. The assessee relied on purchase deeds, bank statements, RTGS entries, lender confirmations, PAN details, promissory notes and cash flow statements; the remand report accepted that the property payments were made in FY 2013-14, so registration later did not justify invoking section 69 for the year under appeal. The bank and cash deposits were also supported by banking trails, lender confirmations, agricultural receipts and reconciliations, and the Revenue produced no contrary material. On that footing, the additions were deleted and the revenue appeal failed. en-us Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2026 08:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793880 Section 69 additions for alleged unexplained investment and cash credits were examined against documentary proof showing the source of immovable property payments, bank deposits and cash deposits. The assessee relied on purchase deeds, bank statements, RTGS entries, lender confirmations, PAN details, promissory notes and cash flow statements; the remand report accepted that the property payments were made in FY 2013-14, so registration later did not justify invoking section 69 for the year under appeal. The bank and cash deposits were also supported by banking trails, lender confirmations, agricultural receipts and reconciliations, and the Revenue produced no contrary material. On that footing, the additions were deleted and the revenue appeal failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793880