<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Addition for alleged land on-money u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE deleted as loose sheets termed dumb documents</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95052</link>
    <description>ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of addition u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE in respect of alleged &quot;on-money&quot; for purchase of land. The Tribunal held that loose sheets and diaries seized from a third party, containing only dates, amounts and abbreviated names without identifying payer, payee, nature or purpose of transactions, were &quot;dumb documents&quot; lacking evidentiary value. The material was neither seized from the assessee nor in assessee&#039;s or vendors&#039; handwriting, and no independent, corroborative evidence or actual money trail was brought on record. The AO&#039;s reliance on such uncorroborated documents and a subsequently retracted statement was held legally untenable. Consequently, the addition for unexplained investment was unsustainable, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Addition for alleged land on-money u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE deleted as loose sheets termed dumb documents</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95052</link>
      <description>ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of addition u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE in respect of alleged &quot;on-money&quot; for purchase of land. The Tribunal held that loose sheets and diaries seized from a third party, containing only dates, amounts and abbreviated names without identifying payer, payee, nature or purpose of transactions, were &quot;dumb documents&quot; lacking evidentiary value. The material was neither seized from the assessee nor in assessee&#039;s or vendors&#039; handwriting, and no independent, corroborative evidence or actual money trail was brought on record. The AO&#039;s reliance on such uncorroborated documents and a subsequently retracted statement was held legally untenable. Consequently, the addition for unexplained investment was unsustainable, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95052</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>