https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762392 The Madras HC allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee regarding agricultural income from casuarina tree sales. The IT Department made additions under Section 69A treating the income as unexplained, relying on a Village Headman's statement. The HC held that the Department failed to properly verify evidence by not summoning and cross-examining the witness who provided supporting documentation. Without proper cross-examination, the witness statement could not be discredited. The HC found the addition unsustainable and set aside the demand confirmed under Section 144A. en-us Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762392 The Madras HC allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee regarding agricultural income from casuarina tree sales. The IT Department made additions under Section 69A treating the income as unexplained, relying on a Village Headman's statement. The HC held that the Department failed to properly verify evidence by not summoning and cross-examining the witness who provided supporting documentation. Without proper cross-examination, the witness statement could not be discredited. The HC found the addition unsustainable and set aside the demand confirmed under Section 144A. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762392