https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761877 The ITAT Jaipur upheld additions under section 69 for undisclosed investments in agricultural land purchase. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash payments made to vendors, which violated statutory provisions. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that cash was received from mother-in-law, noting this explanation was never presented before lower authorities and lacked supporting evidence. The addition was restricted to Rs. 9,08,376 after considering the assessee's declared income. The tribunal dismissed challenges regarding the assessment order's validity based on absence of DIN number and digital signature, finding no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The appellant failed to demonstrate any material harm from these procedural lapses. Regarding prior approval under section 153D, the tribunal noted the appellant inconsistently challenged the approval's validity while simultaneously submitting the approval letter dated 31.12.2019 as evidence. The Additional Commissioner had properly reviewed and approved the draft assessment order, rendering the appellant's contentions meritless. en-us Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761877 The ITAT Jaipur upheld additions under section 69 for undisclosed investments in agricultural land purchase. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash payments made to vendors, which violated statutory provisions. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that cash was received from mother-in-law, noting this explanation was never presented before lower authorities and lacked supporting evidence. The addition was restricted to Rs. 9,08,376 after considering the assessee's declared income. The tribunal dismissed challenges regarding the assessment order's validity based on absence of DIN number and digital signature, finding no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The appellant failed to demonstrate any material harm from these procedural lapses. Regarding prior approval under section 153D, the tribunal noted the appellant inconsistently challenged the approval's validity while simultaneously submitting the approval letter dated 31.12.2019 as evidence. The Additional Commissioner had properly reviewed and approved the draft assessment order, rendering the appellant's contentions meritless. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761877