https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765987 ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed the cash source was advance from a land sale agreement dated 30.4.2015, where execution was deferred for three years allowing buyers to cultivate the land. PCIT contended the document was unregistered and AO failed proper verification. However, ITAT found both FARD and sale agreement were properly furnished to and examined by AO during assessment u/s 143(3). The revision order was held illegal as it exceeded the show cause notice scope, violated natural justice principles, and was based on erroneous findings that documents were unverified when they were actually examined by AO. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:46:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765987 ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed the cash source was advance from a land sale agreement dated 30.4.2015, where execution was deferred for three years allowing buyers to cultivate the land. PCIT contended the document was unregistered and AO failed proper verification. However, ITAT found both FARD and sale agreement were properly furnished to and examined by AO during assessment u/s 143(3). The revision order was held illegal as it exceeded the show cause notice scope, violated natural justice principles, and was based on erroneous findings that documents were unverified when they were actually examined by AO. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765987