https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98060 Additions under section 69A for alleged clandestine sales and unexplained investment failed because the underlying charge of clandestine removal was not sustained in excise proceedings. The ITAT noted that, for another year on the same factual basis, the appellate authority had already deleted similar additions after the CESTAT found the excise allegation unsustainable. Once the allegation of unaccounted sales did not survive, the additions based solely on that premise had no independent evidentiary footing and could not be maintained. The appeal was therefore allowed and the additions deleted. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98060 Additions under section 69A for alleged clandestine sales and unexplained investment failed because the underlying charge of clandestine removal was not sustained in excise proceedings. The ITAT noted that, for another year on the same factual basis, the appellate authority had already deleted similar additions after the CESTAT found the excise allegation unsustainable. Once the allegation of unaccounted sales did not survive, the additions based solely on that premise had no independent evidentiary footing and could not be maintained. The appeal was therefore allowed and the additions deleted. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:10 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98060