https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69895 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to substantiate the estimated sale price as the actual sale consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof rested with the revenue, which relied on insufficient evidence such as letters and unilateral documents, rather than the final sale agreements. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the AO were quashed. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and the reliability of the assessee's books of account, which were not rejected by the revenue. en-us Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69895 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to substantiate the estimated sale price as the actual sale consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof rested with the revenue, which relied on insufficient evidence such as letters and unilateral documents, rather than the final sale agreements. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the additions made by the AO were quashed. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and the reliability of the assessee's books of account, which were not rejected by the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69895