https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401935 The court upheld the addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, ruling against the appellant real estate firm. The appellant's argument regarding the lack of cross-examination opportunity for a witness and the absence of proof of payment was dismissed. The court emphasized the statutory presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, shifting the burden to the assessee to rebut it with evidence. As the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the presumption, the undisclosed income addition was affirmed based on the seized document and statutory presumption. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Mar 2021 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401935 The court upheld the addition of undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer, ruling against the appellant real estate firm. The appellant's argument regarding the lack of cross-examination opportunity for a witness and the absence of proof of payment was dismissed. The court emphasized the statutory presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, shifting the burden to the assessee to rebut it with evidence. As the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the presumption, the undisclosed income addition was affirmed based on the seized document and statutory presumption. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401935