https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292524 The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposits and cash introduction as income but remanded the matter for quantification based on the peak amount in all accounts. The Tribunal rejected the admission of additional evidence and emphasized compliance with Rule 29 regarding evidence submission. The discrepancy in sales figures was resolved in favor of the assessee based on provided reconciliation. The Tribunal directed proper examination of sales reconciliation in compliance with Rule 46A. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Dec 2020 20:16:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292524 The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unexplained cash deposits and cash introduction as income but remanded the matter for quantification based on the peak amount in all accounts. The Tribunal rejected the admission of additional evidence and emphasized compliance with Rule 29 regarding evidence submission. The discrepancy in sales figures was resolved in favor of the assessee based on provided reconciliation. The Tribunal directed proper examination of sales reconciliation in compliance with Rule 46A. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292524