https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754743 ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding CIT(A)'s admission of additional evidence and treatment of unsecured loans and customer advances under section 68. The tribunal held that CIT(A) correctly distinguished between unsecured loans (which can be treated under section 68) and customer advances (which cannot be considered income under section 68). While AO claimed procedural violation under Rule 46A(3) for not examining additional evidence, ITAT found CIT(A)'s powers coterminous with AO's powers. The tribunal concluded that CIT(A) delivered substantive justice within statutory scope, with most documents already available to AO during assessment proceedings. en-us Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754743 ITAT Mumbai dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding CIT(A)'s admission of additional evidence and treatment of unsecured loans and customer advances under section 68. The tribunal held that CIT(A) correctly distinguished between unsecured loans (which can be treated under section 68) and customer advances (which cannot be considered income under section 68). While AO claimed procedural violation under Rule 46A(3) for not examining additional evidence, ITAT found CIT(A)'s powers coterminous with AO's powers. The tribunal concluded that CIT(A) delivered substantive justice within statutory scope, with most documents already available to AO during assessment proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754743