https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439229 Loose or cryptic seized notings, without independent corroboration, could not sustain additions for undisclosed investment, interest, receipts or business profit. The Tribunal held that coded diary entries and projected sales figures were not intelligible enough to be treated as proof of actual income, and that assumptions or estimate-based working could not replace evidence. It further found no proper factual basis to reject the books of account under section 145(3), as the material did not establish suppressed sales or unexplained profits. The Revenue therefore failed to justify the disputed additions, and the deletions made by the appellate authority were upheld. en-us Fri, 14 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439229 Loose or cryptic seized notings, without independent corroboration, could not sustain additions for undisclosed investment, interest, receipts or business profit. The Tribunal held that coded diary entries and projected sales figures were not intelligible enough to be treated as proof of actual income, and that assumptions or estimate-based working could not replace evidence. It further found no proper factual basis to reject the books of account under section 145(3), as the material did not establish suppressed sales or unexplained profits. The Revenue therefore failed to justify the disputed additions, and the deletions made by the appellate authority were upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439229