https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184834 The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted further inquiries to verify the assessee's explanation for discrepancies in sales figures for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, leading to unwarranted additions totaling Rs. 24,87,111 and Rs. 61,28,207. The Tribunal concluded that the burden of explaining the discrepancies had been met by the assessee, shifting the onus back to the revenue, which failed to provide further evidence. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deemed unjustified, and the Tribunal deleted them, allowing the assessee's appeals. en-us Thu, 10 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:53:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184834 The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not conducted further inquiries to verify the assessee's explanation for discrepancies in sales figures for assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, leading to unwarranted additions totaling Rs. 24,87,111 and Rs. 61,28,207. The Tribunal concluded that the burden of explaining the discrepancies had been met by the assessee, shifting the onus back to the revenue, which failed to provide further evidence. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deemed unjustified, and the Tribunal deleted them, allowing the assessee's appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184834