https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413344 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1.5 crores as unaccounted investment. It found that the presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C was incorrectly applied as the son had admitted ownership of the diary. The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for failing to justify the addition adequately, noting the lack of evidence linking the seized document to unaccounted investment by the assessee. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Oct 2021 14:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413344 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1.5 crores as unaccounted investment. It found that the presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C was incorrectly applied as the son had admitted ownership of the diary. The Tribunal criticized the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) for failing to justify the addition adequately, noting the lack of evidence linking the seized document to unaccounted investment by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413344