https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177289 The dominant issue was whether an addition could be sustained solely on entries in a diary/loose sheet seized in search. The majority held that a loose sheet is not "books of account" regularly kept, hence section 34 of the Evidence Act could not, by itself, fasten liability, and such entries are at best corroborative. In the absence of independent circumstantial material (such as unaccounted cash, jewellery, or investments) to establish that the entry represented actual receipt/availability of cash, the assessee's explanation that it reflected only planning could not be rejected. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by CIT(A) was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177289 The dominant issue was whether an addition could be sustained solely on entries in a diary/loose sheet seized in search. The majority held that a loose sheet is not "books of account" regularly kept, hence section 34 of the Evidence Act could not, by itself, fasten liability, and such entries are at best corroborative. In the absence of independent circumstantial material (such as unaccounted cash, jewellery, or investments) to establish that the entry represented actual receipt/availability of cash, the assessee's explanation that it reflected only planning could not be rejected. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by CIT(A) was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177289