https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755420 ITAT Mumbai allowed assessee's appeal against addition under section 69A for alleged cash receipts from flat buyers. The addition was based on documents seized during survey operations and statements from accountant under section 133A, which lack evidentiary value. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient as dates in documents didn't match actual allotment/registration dates, and entries lacked material facts like payment mode, dates, and parties involved. Following precedent in Anil Jaggi case, the Tribunal held that builder's records alone cannot establish buyer's cash payment when purchase consideration matches market rates without corroborating evidence. The addition was deleted. en-us Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755420 ITAT Mumbai allowed assessee's appeal against addition under section 69A for alleged cash receipts from flat buyers. The addition was based on documents seized during survey operations and statements from accountant under section 133A, which lack evidentiary value. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient as dates in documents didn't match actual allotment/registration dates, and entries lacked material facts like payment mode, dates, and parties involved. Following precedent in Anil Jaggi case, the Tribunal held that builder's records alone cannot establish buyer's cash payment when purchase consideration matches market rates without corroborating evidence. The addition was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755420