https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308888 The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, citing sufficient basis from documents found during a search. However, it found no evidence supporting the addition of Rs. 4,66,660 under Section 69 for unexplained investment in land, as there was no privity of contract between the assessee and the individual from whom the plot was allegedly purchased. The tribunal criticized the denial of the cross-examination opportunity as a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the appeals were partially allowed, directing the deletion of the addition and dismissing the stay application. en-us Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 30 Jul 2023 11:22:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308888 The tribunal upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 147, citing sufficient basis from documents found during a search. However, it found no evidence supporting the addition of Rs. 4,66,660 under Section 69 for unexplained investment in land, as there was no privity of contract between the assessee and the individual from whom the plot was allegedly purchased. The tribunal criticized the denial of the cross-examination opportunity as a violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the appeals were partially allowed, directing the deletion of the addition and dismissing the stay application. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308888