DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR - 4, SURAT vs. NARESHKUMAR B. AGARWAL, SURAT

section 292C of the Act and by observing that the paper\nwas not in the handwriting of assessee and not signed by the assessee and\ndespite the fact that addition has been made on the basis of incriminating\ndetails/document recovered during the search proceedings as a whatsapp\nimaged found from the mobile of the assessee and the assessee has failed

KSHITIJ MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR.1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.2,34,91,839/- of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 2. It is therefore prayed that