https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292650 ITAT Mumbai held that additional evidence could not be relied on where the Assessing Officer had not been given a fair opportunity to examine it, so admission of such material contrary to Rule 46A and natural justice was improper. On the Section 68 issue, the deletion of the addition for share application money and premium could not stand because the record did not adequately establish the investor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction, especially after the Section 133(6) notice remained unserved. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes. en-us Wed, 01 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 03 Jan 2021 10:47:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292650 ITAT Mumbai held that additional evidence could not be relied on where the Assessing Officer had not been given a fair opportunity to examine it, so admission of such material contrary to Rule 46A and natural justice was improper. On the Section 68 issue, the deletion of the addition for share application money and premium could not stand because the record did not adequately establish the investor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction, especially after the Section 133(6) notice remained unserved. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and adjudication, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292650