https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469480 Additional evidence filed under Rule 46A to explain the source of investment in a house property was accepted in remand proceedings, and the Assessing Officer reported that the source had been duly explained. In that situation, the appellate authority should have decided the addition on merits rather than remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The later amendment permitting remand in matters arising from assessments under section 144 did not justify a remand where factual verification had already been completed and no further enquiry was shown to be necessary. The remand was therefore unjustified, and the addition for unexplained investment was deleted. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2026 18:59:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469480 Additional evidence filed under Rule 46A to explain the source of investment in a house property was accepted in remand proceedings, and the Assessing Officer reported that the source had been duly explained. In that situation, the appellate authority should have decided the addition on merits rather than remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The later amendment permitting remand in matters arising from assessments under section 144 did not justify a remand where factual verification had already been completed and no further enquiry was shown to be necessary. The remand was therefore unjustified, and the addition for unexplained investment was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469480