https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92936 ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition under s. 69C, finding the AO's treatment legally unsustainable. The AO ignored comprehensive documentary evidence submitted by the assessee - ledger entries, supplier invoices, delivery challans, inventory registers, bank remittances, vehicle entry/exit records, lorry receipts and warehouse log books - and did not dispute their veracity. The tribunal noted the supplier's GST cancellation postdated the challenged purchases, undermining the AO's sham-transaction assertion. Given the assessee's substantiation and the AO's failure to engage with or controvert the evidence, ITAT confirmed that the addition was unjustified and upheld relief granted by the CIT(A). en-us Mon, 29 Sep 2025 08:27:21 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2025 08:27:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92936 ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition under s. 69C, finding the AO's treatment legally unsustainable. The AO ignored comprehensive documentary evidence submitted by the assessee - ledger entries, supplier invoices, delivery challans, inventory registers, bank remittances, vehicle entry/exit records, lorry receipts and warehouse log books - and did not dispute their veracity. The tribunal noted the supplier's GST cancellation postdated the challenged purchases, undermining the AO's sham-transaction assertion. Given the assessee's substantiation and the AO's failure to engage with or controvert the evidence, ITAT confirmed that the addition was unjustified and upheld relief granted by the CIT(A). Highlights Income Tax Mon, 29 Sep 2025 08:27:21 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92936