Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Incriminating docs like satakhat & digital data insufficient for additions u/ss 69A & 69B. Lack of payment proof, unexamined sellers, no probe.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Incriminating documents seized during search proceedings, like notarized satakhat and digital data, were the basis for additions u/ss 69A and 69B. However, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that the satakhat lacked acknowledgment of payment, the sellers were not examined, and no independent investigation was conducted. Regarding the digital data, no evidence of on-money payment for land purchase was found. The assessee's father had filed a settlement application, offering income on the transaction amount, which was accepted. The Tribunal held that in the absence of corroborative evidence of on-money payment, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified.....