The Tribunal held there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards the difference in stock since in the assessee’s own case for the immediately succeeding assessment year, the Tribunal had made an observation akin to that of the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. (AY. 2013-14)
ITO v. Ramesh Chand (2022)97 ITR 421 (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 69 : Unexplained investment-Stock figures and cash position different in statement furnished to the bank and in book of accounts-Statement given to third party not admissible as evidence-CIT(A) is justified in deleting additions. [133(6)]