https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400055 In a Section 260-A income-tax appeal, the Madras HC held that a fact finding order may be interfered with where it is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or rendered without independent reasoning after ignoring material relied on by the Assessing Officer. The Court found that the Tribunal and appellate authority had not given sustainable reasons for deleting block-assessment additions based on search material, seized documents, books, laptop data, pronotes, cash balances, fixed deposits, and other entries indicating undisclosed income. The Rule 46A objection was rejected because no fresh evidence had actually been admitted. The deletions were set aside and the additions restored for reconsideration. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400055 In a Section 260-A income-tax appeal, the Madras HC held that a fact finding order may be interfered with where it is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or rendered without independent reasoning after ignoring material relied on by the Assessing Officer. The Court found that the Tribunal and appellate authority had not given sustainable reasons for deleting block-assessment additions based on search material, seized documents, books, laptop data, pronotes, cash balances, fixed deposits, and other entries indicating undisclosed income. The Rule 46A objection was rejected because no fresh evidence had actually been admitted. The deletions were set aside and the additions restored for reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400055