https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60951 The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 1,61,310 to the assessee's income for assumed sale of 'chilka' (rice husk), but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) deleted the addition due to lack of justification and inconsistency in tax treatment. The assessee argued 'chilka' had no market value in the relevant year, supported by the fact that no previous assessments reflected such sales. A bench of three members rendered differing opinions, with the Third Member ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence and consistency in tax treatment. en-us Mon, 23 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:01:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60951 The Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 1,61,310 to the assessee's income for assumed sale of 'chilka' (rice husk), but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) deleted the addition due to lack of justification and inconsistency in tax treatment. The assessee argued 'chilka' had no market value in the relevant year, supported by the fact that no previous assessments reflected such sales. A bench of three members rendered differing opinions, with the Third Member ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence and consistency in tax treatment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60951