https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215734 Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules can be used only to support the order appealed against on grounds decided against a respondent; it cannot be used to mount an independent challenge to the initiation of section 153C proceedings after cross-objections were withdrawn, so that challenge was rejected. Registered sale deeds and surrounding facts supported the view that the claimed land payment was made in the relevant year, so the unexplained investment addition was upheld. Credits received through banking channels from the assessee's son, who confirmed the transfers, discharged the initial burden under section 68, so those additions were deleted. The Chandlodiya land issue was remanded because the record was insufficient to determine the capital-gain and cost-related facts. en-us Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215734 Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules can be used only to support the order appealed against on grounds decided against a respondent; it cannot be used to mount an independent challenge to the initiation of section 153C proceedings after cross-objections were withdrawn, so that challenge was rejected. Registered sale deeds and surrounding facts supported the view that the claimed land payment was made in the relevant year, so the unexplained investment addition was upheld. Credits received through banking channels from the assessee's son, who confirmed the transfers, discharged the initial burden under section 68, so those additions were deleted. The Chandlodiya land issue was remanded because the record was insufficient to determine the capital-gain and cost-related facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215734