https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60574 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of Rs. 1,11,46,448 as income from undisclosed sources. It was found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Shri D. Sengupta was a benamidar for the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof, leading to the conclusion that the addition was based on mere conjecture and lacked proper substantiation. en-us Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60574 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of Rs. 1,11,46,448 as income from undisclosed sources. It was found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that Shri D. Sengupta was a benamidar for the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof, leading to the conclusion that the addition was based on mere conjecture and lacked proper substantiation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60574