https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260597 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer due to the violation of Rule 46A regarding additional evidence. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the confirmation letter provided by M/s. SK Builders partners. The cross objection by the assessee was dismissed as it aligned with the CIT(A)'s order, which was overturned. This case underscores the significance of adhering to procedural rules, like Rule 46A, in presenting additional evidence during tax appeals, especially in assessments related to investments and land dealings. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:29:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260597 The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer due to the violation of Rule 46A regarding additional evidence. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-examine the confirmation letter provided by M/s. SK Builders partners. The cross objection by the assessee was dismissed as it aligned with the CIT(A)'s order, which was overturned. This case underscores the significance of adhering to procedural rules, like Rule 46A, in presenting additional evidence during tax appeals, especially in assessments related to investments and land dealings. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260597