https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446153 ITAT Chennai ruled against revenue in an unexplained investment case u/s 69. AO made addition based on seized loose sheets containing Balance Sheets found during search, requiring assessee to substantiate creditor details. CIT(A) deleted the addition. ITAT held that AO erred by accepting favorable portions of Balance Sheet while demanding substantiation of other parts. The tribunal emphasized that seized documents create presumption of correctness, and assessee cannot be obligated to prove only selective portions. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion, finding the addition unsustainable as required additions were already made for discrepancies and post-search period income. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Nov 2023 07:15:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446153 ITAT Chennai ruled against revenue in an unexplained investment case u/s 69. AO made addition based on seized loose sheets containing Balance Sheets found during search, requiring assessee to substantiate creditor details. CIT(A) deleted the addition. ITAT held that AO erred by accepting favorable portions of Balance Sheet while demanding substantiation of other parts. The tribunal emphasized that seized documents create presumption of correctness, and assessee cannot be obligated to prove only selective portions. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion, finding the addition unsustainable as required additions were already made for discrepancies and post-search period income. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446153