<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (8) TMI 117 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69600</link>
    <description>Addition towards alleged &quot;bogus sundry credits&quot; in a block assessment was held unsustainable because it was a sweeping 50% estimate extrapolated from limited enquiries, the underlying inspector reports/statements were not confronted to the assessee, and mere doubts about credits recorded in books did not satisfy the statutory concept of &quot;undisclosed income&quot; under s.158B(b); further, the AO could not both discredit seized accounts as unreliable and yet rely on selected entries from them. The addition was deleted and undisclosed income was directed to be taken at the returned figure. Retraction from an oath admission was rejected since no cogent evidence of coercion or involuntariness was produced; the admitted sum remained included in returned undisclosed income. Superior-authority dictation was found to vitiate independent adjudication, but annulment was declined due to the assessee&#039;s own returned admission; relief was confined to deleting the impugned addition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 14:28:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 117 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69600</link>
      <description>Addition towards alleged &quot;bogus sundry credits&quot; in a block assessment was held unsustainable because it was a sweeping 50% estimate extrapolated from limited enquiries, the underlying inspector reports/statements were not confronted to the assessee, and mere doubts about credits recorded in books did not satisfy the statutory concept of &quot;undisclosed income&quot; under s.158B(b); further, the AO could not both discredit seized accounts as unreliable and yet rely on selected entries from them. The addition was deleted and undisclosed income was directed to be taken at the returned figure. Retraction from an oath admission was rejected since no cogent evidence of coercion or involuntariness was produced; the admitted sum remained included in returned undisclosed income. Superior-authority dictation was found to vitiate independent adjudication, but annulment was declined due to the assessee&#039;s own returned admission; relief was confined to deleting the impugned addition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>