CIT(A) Can Call for Evidence Directly – No Rule 46A Violation

ACIT Vs Muffazal Lakdawala (ITAT Mumbai) CIT(A)’s Co-terminus Powers Prevail: ITAT Mumbai Upholds Deletion of ₹3.25 Cr Addition u/s 68 Mumbai ITAT  dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of ₹3.25 crore added u/s 68 in the case of Muffazal Lakdawala for AY 2020-21 The AO had treated unsecured loans of ₹1.50 crore from Anjuman E-Mohammadi Trust and ₹1.75 crore from Reshma Jairam Shetty as unexplained cash credits solely on the ground that the lenders did not respond to notices u/s 133(6). However, before the CIT(A), the Assessee furnished ITRs of the lenders, confirm...