https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83521 The court held that the income tax department failed to properly investigate and cross-examine the crucial witness, Mr. Thangasamy, whose statement supported the assessee's claim of agricultural income from the sale of casuarina trees. The mere reliance on the village headman's statement was insufficient to discredit Mr. Thangasamy's statement produced by the assessee. The court emphasized that the department should have summoned and cross-examined Mr. Thangasamy to contradict his statement, as disbelieving or disregarding his statement without such cross-examination was incorrect. Consequently, the addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained income was set aside, and the decision was rendered in favor of the assessee. en-us Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:56 +0530 Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83521 The court held that the income tax department failed to properly investigate and cross-examine the crucial witness, Mr. Thangasamy, whose statement supported the assessee's claim of agricultural income from the sale of casuarina trees. The mere reliance on the village headman's statement was insufficient to discredit Mr. Thangasamy's statement produced by the assessee. The court emphasized that the department should have summoned and cross-examined Mr. Thangasamy to contradict his statement, as disbelieving or disregarding his statement without such cross-examination was incorrect. Consequently, the addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act as unexplained income was set aside, and the decision was rendered in favor of the assessee. Highlights Income Tax Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:56 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83521