https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767544 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing additions made under sections 153A and 69C based on seized diary entries. The tribunal held that mere diary entries without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions. Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries using available statutory tools. The presumption under section 132(4A) being rebuttable, circumstantial evidence favored the assessee. No excess cash or unaccounted assets were discovered during search. The tribunal applied the principle that onus lies on the person alleging, and assessee cannot bear impossible burden of proving negative facts. CIT(A)'s partial confirmation using Peak Theory was unjustified without establishing veracity of entries. en-us Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:21:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767544 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing additions made under sections 153A and 69C based on seized diary entries. The tribunal held that mere diary entries without corroborative evidence cannot justify additions. Revenue failed to conduct independent inquiries using available statutory tools. The presumption under section 132(4A) being rebuttable, circumstantial evidence favored the assessee. No excess cash or unaccounted assets were discovered during search. The tribunal applied the principle that onus lies on the person alleging, and assessee cannot bear impossible burden of proving negative facts. CIT(A)'s partial confirmation using Peak Theory was unjustified without establishing veracity of entries. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767544