https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788807 An ITAT note explains that an addition for alleged unexplained excess gold jewellery under section 69A was not finally sustained because the assessee claimed the jewellery belonged to customers for job work and produced fresh details that had not been examined; the matter was therefore sent back for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. It also notes that an addition for difference in business income, based only on a survey declaration, was deleted because the audited books and return were otherwise relied upon and the declaration alone was not enough to support the addition. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Mar 2026 12:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788807 An ITAT note explains that an addition for alleged unexplained excess gold jewellery under section 69A was not finally sustained because the assessee claimed the jewellery belonged to customers for job work and produced fresh details that had not been examined; the matter was therefore sent back for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. It also notes that an addition for difference in business income, based only on a survey declaration, was deleted because the audited books and return were otherwise relied upon and the declaration alone was not enough to support the addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788807