https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791267 Additions based on material seized from a third party were held usable in assessment proceedings where the seized document related to the assessee and the search material connected with the same premises, so the objection that proceedings under section 153C were required failed. However, an addition as unexplained investment under section 69A could not be sustained on the basis of an unsigned document and a retracted statement alone, because the Assessing Officer did not obtain corroborative evidence or independent verification from the seller or revenue records. In the absence of reliable proof of the underlying transaction, the cash addition was deleted. en-us Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791267 Additions based on material seized from a third party were held usable in assessment proceedings where the seized document related to the assessee and the search material connected with the same premises, so the objection that proceedings under section 153C were required failed. However, an addition as unexplained investment under section 69A could not be sustained on the basis of an unsigned document and a retracted statement alone, because the Assessing Officer did not obtain corroborative evidence or independent verification from the seller or revenue records. In the absence of reliable proof of the underlying transaction, the cash addition was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791267