https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759211 The HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding addition of unexplained income from casurina tree sales under Section 69. The Department disbelieved the appellant's supporting statement without cross-examining the witness, relying solely on an Income Tax Inspector's enquiry report based on Village Headman's information gathered long after the tree sale. The court held that while the Department operates on preponderance of probability, it was incumbent to summon and cross-examine the witness before disbelieving his statement. Without proper cross-examination, the witness's statement cannot be discredited. The orders under Section 144(A), affirmed by AO under Section 143(3), Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Section 69A addition were set aside as unsustainable. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759211 The HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding addition of unexplained income from casurina tree sales under Section 69. The Department disbelieved the appellant's supporting statement without cross-examining the witness, relying solely on an Income Tax Inspector's enquiry report based on Village Headman's information gathered long after the tree sale. The court held that while the Department operates on preponderance of probability, it was incumbent to summon and cross-examine the witness before disbelieving his statement. Without proper cross-examination, the witness's statement cannot be discredited. The orders under Section 144(A), affirmed by AO under Section 143(3), Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding Section 69A addition were set aside as unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759211