https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766035 The ITAT Hyderabad remanded two issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. First, regarding addition made due to difference in receipts per 26AS and ITR, the tribunal found the assessee failed to properly explain the impugned amount as mobilization advance or other advance. The CIT(A) had furnished details for reconciliation without confronting the AO. Second, concerning rejection of trading results despite audited books under section 44A, the tribunal held CIT(A) passed a cryptic order accepting assessee's contentions without cogent reasons regarding inventory mismatch and GP ratio differences. Both matters were remanded with directions for the assessee to furnish documentary evidence and prove their case, with AO having liberty to decide per facts and law if assessee fails to respond. Revenue's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766035 The ITAT Hyderabad remanded two issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. First, regarding addition made due to difference in receipts per 26AS and ITR, the tribunal found the assessee failed to properly explain the impugned amount as mobilization advance or other advance. The CIT(A) had furnished details for reconciliation without confronting the AO. Second, concerning rejection of trading results despite audited books under section 44A, the tribunal held CIT(A) passed a cryptic order accepting assessee's contentions without cogent reasons regarding inventory mismatch and GP ratio differences. Both matters were remanded with directions for the assessee to furnish documentary evidence and prove their case, with AO having liberty to decide per facts and law if assessee fails to respond. Revenue's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766035