https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177773 Additions based on seized loose papers require direct evidence linking the recorded figures to taxable income; suspicion alone cannot substitute proof. The Tribunal upheld deletion of an addition where the figures were explained as rough projections of a firm's estimated earnings and the Assessing Officer produced no material establishing actual commission, investment or interest income. The objection that the Assessing Officer was denied an opportunity to cross-examine failed because the appellate authority accepted an explanation already advanced during assessment, rather than relying on fresh material. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177773 Additions based on seized loose papers require direct evidence linking the recorded figures to taxable income; suspicion alone cannot substitute proof. The Tribunal upheld deletion of an addition where the figures were explained as rough projections of a firm's estimated earnings and the Assessing Officer produced no material establishing actual commission, investment or interest income. The objection that the Assessing Officer was denied an opportunity to cross-examine failed because the appellate authority accepted an explanation already advanced during assessment, rather than relying on fresh material. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177773