https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70775 Handwriting expert opinion is relevant but weak evidence and must be weighed cautiously, especially when it is unsupported by corroboration. Where the assessee's experts gave detailed reasons and were not cross-examined, while the Revenue's expert offered only a bare conclusion and accepted dissimilarities and possible variation in cross-examination, the Tribunal declined to reopen the seized loose sheets for fresh evidentiary inquiry. It also considered the long lapse of time and refused to remit the matter for further cross-examination. The Revenue's Rule 29 application was rejected, and the earlier dismissal of the departmental appeal remained undisturbed. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:46:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70775 Handwriting expert opinion is relevant but weak evidence and must be weighed cautiously, especially when it is unsupported by corroboration. Where the assessee's experts gave detailed reasons and were not cross-examined, while the Revenue's expert offered only a bare conclusion and accepted dissimilarities and possible variation in cross-examination, the Tribunal declined to reopen the seized loose sheets for fresh evidentiary inquiry. It also considered the long lapse of time and refused to remit the matter for further cross-examination. The Revenue's Rule 29 application was rejected, and the earlier dismissal of the departmental appeal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70775