https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351675 HC upheld the ITAT and CIT(A) orders in favour of the assessee, holding that once the assessee produced documentary evidence to prove the existence of shareholder companies, the burden shifted to the Revenue. The Revenue relied only on statements of two persons who were never offered for cross-examination, rendering such evidence unreliable. HC held that the AO ought to have allowed cross-examination if those statements were to be used. Voluminous public documents could not be discarded on that basis. HC also affirmed that proceedings under s.147 cannot be used merely for reverification of records and declined interference under s.260A. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 16:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351675 HC upheld the ITAT and CIT(A) orders in favour of the assessee, holding that once the assessee produced documentary evidence to prove the existence of shareholder companies, the burden shifted to the Revenue. The Revenue relied only on statements of two persons who were never offered for cross-examination, rendering such evidence unreliable. HC held that the AO ought to have allowed cross-examination if those statements were to be used. Voluminous public documents could not be discarded on that basis. HC also affirmed that proceedings under s.147 cannot be used merely for reverification of records and declined interference under s.260A. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351675