https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404565 The appeal was filed by the revenue with a delay of 30 days, which was condoned due to administrative reasons and election duties. An addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act was made by the Assessing Officer but later deleted by the CIT(A) based on the Assessee's explanation and precedents. The CIT(A) emphasized the Assessee's practice of inflating stock and debtors for loan purposes. Additional evidence submitted by the Assessee was contested by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that differences between bank statements and books of accounts do not necessarily indicate undisclosed income, citing relevant case laws. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404565 The appeal was filed by the revenue with a delay of 30 days, which was condoned due to administrative reasons and election duties. An addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act was made by the Assessing Officer but later deleted by the CIT(A) based on the Assessee's explanation and precedents. The CIT(A) emphasized the Assessee's practice of inflating stock and debtors for loan purposes. Additional evidence submitted by the Assessee was contested by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that differences between bank statements and books of accounts do not necessarily indicate undisclosed income, citing relevant case laws. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404565