https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401645 An addition for alleged on-money payment could not stand where it was founded only on a seized pendrive and a retracted third-party statement, without independent corroboration. Denial of cross-examination of the builder's employee was treated as a serious procedural defect because the impugned material was the sole basis of the addition. The absence of any DVO reference also weakened the Revenue's case, especially where the rate implied for the alleged on-money appeared unrealistic against surrounding market indicators. The deletion of the addition was upheld because the record did not prove payment beyond the amount already admitted and accepted in the assessee's company assessment. en-us Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Dec 2020 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401645 An addition for alleged on-money payment could not stand where it was founded only on a seized pendrive and a retracted third-party statement, without independent corroboration. Denial of cross-examination of the builder's employee was treated as a serious procedural defect because the impugned material was the sole basis of the addition. The absence of any DVO reference also weakened the Revenue's case, especially where the rate implied for the alleged on-money appeared unrealistic against surrounding market indicators. The deletion of the addition was upheld because the record did not prove payment beyond the amount already admitted and accepted in the assessee's company assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401645