https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446158 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT(A)'s addition under section 68. The CIT(A) had initially been directed by the Tribunal to examine the AO's addition under section 69 regarding undisclosed investment sources after admitting additional evidence. However, CIT(A) exceeded the Tribunal's mandate by making a new addition concerning cash deposits in bank account without providing proper notice to the assessee. The Tribunal held that examining investment sources versus examining cash deposit sources were different exercises requiring separate notice, making the CIT(A)'s addition unsustainable. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Nov 2023 07:15:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446158 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against CIT(A)'s addition under section 68. The CIT(A) had initially been directed by the Tribunal to examine the AO's addition under section 69 regarding undisclosed investment sources after admitting additional evidence. However, CIT(A) exceeded the Tribunal's mandate by making a new addition concerning cash deposits in bank account without providing proper notice to the assessee. The Tribunal held that examining investment sources versus examining cash deposit sources were different exercises requiring separate notice, making the CIT(A)'s addition unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446158