https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470748 Section 69A requires the assessee to explain the source of money in possession; where sale and purchase agreements supported the explanation for cash advances, an unexplained-money addition cannot rest on assumptions without independent enquiry or evidence of undisclosed ownership. The notes state that the additions were deleted because the source explanation was not properly rebutted. Section 69 requires proof that an actual investment was made. As the alleged additional investment was based on an incorrect computation, with no evidence of payment or property transfer, its deletion was sustained. The stated principle is that prima facie source evidence cannot be rejected without investigation and substantiating evidence. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2026 19:34:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470748 Section 69A requires the assessee to explain the source of money in possession; where sale and purchase agreements supported the explanation for cash advances, an unexplained-money addition cannot rest on assumptions without independent enquiry or evidence of undisclosed ownership. The notes state that the additions were deleted because the source explanation was not properly rebutted. Section 69 requires proof that an actual investment was made. As the alleged additional investment was based on an incorrect computation, with no evidence of payment or property transfer, its deletion was sustained. The stated principle is that prima facie source evidence cannot be rejected without investigation and substantiating evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=470748