Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the Assessing Officer did not disprove that the entries in the diary seized related to the money transactions received for various housing projects of the firms and the assessee was maintaining the account of the partners of the various firms. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. (AY.2014-15)
Dy. CIT v. Alpeshkumar Rasiklal Lakhani (2024)110 ITR 53 (Trib) (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)
S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Income from undisclosed sources-Partner in firms carrying construction projects-Entries in Diary seized during search-Cash received and paid-Undisclosed income was disclosed by partners-Deletion of addition is affirmed
Leave a Reply