https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446152 ITAT Chennai upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made during search proceedings. Regarding seized cash of Rs. 1,32,340, the tribunal accepted assessee's explanation of past salary savings given his high income. For Rs. 5 lakhs, third party confirmation via email was accepted as AO failed to verify despite not disputing the claim. Addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted as assessee reconciled seized items with wealth tax returns and family members' holdings were within CBDT limits. Undisclosed income addition based solely on statement under section 132(4) was rejected, following Supreme Court precedent that admissions cannot be sole foundation for assessment without corroborating evidence. Assessment order validity was upheld despite typographical error referencing section 153A instead of 142(1), as substantive proceedings remained valid. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Nov 2023 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446152 ITAT Chennai upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made during search proceedings. Regarding seized cash of Rs. 1,32,340, the tribunal accepted assessee's explanation of past salary savings given his high income. For Rs. 5 lakhs, third party confirmation via email was accepted as AO failed to verify despite not disputing the claim. Addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted as assessee reconciled seized items with wealth tax returns and family members' holdings were within CBDT limits. Undisclosed income addition based solely on statement under section 132(4) was rejected, following Supreme Court precedent that admissions cannot be sole foundation for assessment without corroborating evidence. Assessment order validity was upheld despite typographical error referencing section 153A instead of 142(1), as substantive proceedings remained valid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446152