Ravindran M. v. ITO (2026) 349 CTR 774 / 310 Taxman 611 (Mad)(HC)

S. 69B: Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account-Rejection of books and reference to DVO-Addition was affirmed. [S.69A, 142A, 260A]

On appeal to the High Court, the Assessee’s contentions were rejected. The High Court held that the AO did reject the books of accounts produced by the Assessee before resorting to getting the DVO’s report. The records and evidence clearly establish that the books of accounts produced by the assessee were considered and rejected. Based on the DVO report, a substantial portion of investment had been suppressed, and that portion of income was rightly considered by all authorities as Assessee’s escaped income.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*