https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782026 ITAT AHMEDABAD allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, holding that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69C on alleged non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on extensive additional evidence (confirmations, e-way bills, GST returns, stock records, invoices, bank statements) that was either not before the AO or filed for the first time in appeal, without obtaining a remand report as mandated under Rule 46A(3). Due to this procedural violation, the appellate order was held unsustainable and the matter was restored for fresh consideration. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782026 ITAT AHMEDABAD allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, holding that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 69C on alleged non-genuine purchases. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on extensive additional evidence (confirmations, e-way bills, GST returns, stock records, invoices, bank statements) that was either not before the AO or filed for the first time in appeal, without obtaining a remand report as mandated under Rule 46A(3). Due to this procedural violation, the appellate order was held unsustainable and the matter was restored for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782026