https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94657 HC dismissed the assessee's challenge to the revisional order u/s 264, upholding characterization of the disclosed sums as unexplained money u/s 69A, noting absence of ITRs for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, failure to explain source of income, and minimal compliance with notices u/s 142(1). The HC held the revisional authority's view to be a plausible one warranting no interference under Art. 226. However, following precedent, HC held that partial payments made under IDS, 2016 could not be retained by Revenue without authority of law and directed that credit be given for such installments (or adjustment under other schemes) in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:35:10 +0530 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:35:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94657 HC dismissed the assessee's challenge to the revisional order u/s 264, upholding characterization of the disclosed sums as unexplained money u/s 69A, noting absence of ITRs for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, failure to explain source of income, and minimal compliance with notices u/s 142(1). The HC held the revisional authority's view to be a plausible one warranting no interference under Art. 226. However, following precedent, HC held that partial payments made under IDS, 2016 could not be retained by Revenue without authority of law and directed that credit be given for such installments (or adjustment under other schemes) in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 01 Dec 2025 14:35:10 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94657