https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450248 ITAT Chennai held that additions under sections 68 and 69A were unjustified where assessee claimed cash receipts from recovery of farmer advances. AO made additions based on non-appearance of some farmers during verification. However, assessee discharged primary onus by providing requisite details and confirmation letters. AO conducted no independent enquiries to controvert assessee's evidence. In sample verification of 48 farmers, 21 provided confirmations matching assessee's records. Non-appearance of remaining farmers insufficient for adverse inference. Cash deposits were properly supported by cash book entries and used for legitimate purposes including bank loan settlement. AO's approach of accepting partial explanation while rejecting remainder was artificial and unjustified. Additions deleted in assessee's favor. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2024 07:32:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450248 ITAT Chennai held that additions under sections 68 and 69A were unjustified where assessee claimed cash receipts from recovery of farmer advances. AO made additions based on non-appearance of some farmers during verification. However, assessee discharged primary onus by providing requisite details and confirmation letters. AO conducted no independent enquiries to controvert assessee's evidence. In sample verification of 48 farmers, 21 provided confirmations matching assessee's records. Non-appearance of remaining farmers insufficient for adverse inference. Cash deposits were properly supported by cash book entries and used for legitimate purposes including bank loan settlement. AO's approach of accepting partial explanation while rejecting remainder was artificial and unjustified. Additions deleted in assessee's favor. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450248