https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363158 Whether prior approval under s.153D for an assessment under s.153A required a separate hearing by the approving authority was rejected, since the Act mandates approval of the draft order but not an additional opportunity when the assessee had already been heard by the AO and appellate authorities; internal departmental guidelines could not create a substantive right; consequently, no substantial question of law arose. Whether estimation of undisclosed income could rest on seized material and a s.132(4) statement was answered in the affirmative, as the statement quantifying undisclosed income matched seized records and an uncorroborated retraction was treated as an afterthought; the additions were sustained. Whether undisclosed investment in a flat was proved was treated as factual, based on admission of unaccounted investment; the challenge failed. Appeal dismissed against the assessee. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363158 Whether prior approval under s.153D for an assessment under s.153A required a separate hearing by the approving authority was rejected, since the Act mandates approval of the draft order but not an additional opportunity when the assessee had already been heard by the AO and appellate authorities; internal departmental guidelines could not create a substantive right; consequently, no substantial question of law arose. Whether estimation of undisclosed income could rest on seized material and a s.132(4) statement was answered in the affirmative, as the statement quantifying undisclosed income matched seized records and an uncorroborated retraction was treated as an afterthought; the additions were sustained. Whether undisclosed investment in a flat was proved was treated as factual, based on admission of unaccounted investment; the challenge failed. Appeal dismissed against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363158