https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468088 ITAT Hyderabad considered whether an addition for alleged non-compliance with the section 11(5) investment requirement could stand when the assessee produced fixed deposit receipt evidence as additional material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal admitted the evidence in the interest of justice, but as the receipts had not been verified by the Assessing Officer, the factual claim could not be finally decided at that stage. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo verification of the FDRs and fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Apr 2026 20:22:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468088 ITAT Hyderabad considered whether an addition for alleged non-compliance with the section 11(5) investment requirement could stand when the assessee produced fixed deposit receipt evidence as additional material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal admitted the evidence in the interest of justice, but as the receipts had not been verified by the Assessing Officer, the factual claim could not be finally decided at that stage. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo verification of the FDRs and fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468088