Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
A prior unsuccessful revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, as the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and no provision prohibited recourse to appeal after an earlier bona fide attempt at revision. The Tribunal also accepted sufficient cause for the delay before the first appellate authority and rejected the non-maintainability finding. On merits, cash deposits made during demonetisation were supported by bank records and supporting documents showing withdrawals for house construction and their later redeposit, so the addition under section 69A was held to rest on mere guesswork and was deleted.
A prior unsuccessful revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, as the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and no provision prohibited recourse to appeal after an earlier bona fide attempt at revision. The Tribunal also accepted sufficient cause for the delay before the first appellate authority and rejected the non-maintainability finding. On merits, cash deposits made during demonetisation were supported by bank records and supporting documents showing withdrawals for house construction and their later redeposit, so the addition under section 69A was held to rest on mere guesswork and was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.