https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755988 The ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained investment in immovable property. The tribunal held that mere statements recorded during search cannot constitute incriminating evidence for additions without corresponding documentary proof. Despite the assessee's statement claiming Rs. 36,00,000 as total consideration, the department failed to produce incriminating documents substantiating cash payment beyond cheque payments. Following SC precedent in CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers, the tribunal ruled that statements alone are insufficient for additions in search cases. The CIT(A)'s findings were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed on grounds 1-3. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jul 2024 21:19:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755988 The ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained investment in immovable property. The tribunal held that mere statements recorded during search cannot constitute incriminating evidence for additions without corresponding documentary proof. Despite the assessee's statement claiming Rs. 36,00,000 as total consideration, the department failed to produce incriminating documents substantiating cash payment beyond cheque payments. Following SC precedent in CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers, the tribunal ruled that statements alone are insufficient for additions in search cases. The CIT(A)'s findings were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed on grounds 1-3. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755988