https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465474 The dominant issue was whether a cash unsecured loan of Rs. 2,67,000, received and repaid in sums exceeding Rs. 20,000, was wrongly treated as unexplained cash credit under s. 68 instead of being examined under ss. 269SS/269T with consequential penalty exposure under ss. 271D/271E. The Tribunal held that the revisionary directions under s. 263 required the AO to address the statutory bar on cash loans/repayments, and that the lower orders were passed ex parte without adequate evidence. In view of additional documents admitted under r. 29 of the ITAT Rules, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification and fresh action in line with the s. 263 directions; the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 11:12:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465474 The dominant issue was whether a cash unsecured loan of Rs. 2,67,000, received and repaid in sums exceeding Rs. 20,000, was wrongly treated as unexplained cash credit under s. 68 instead of being examined under ss. 269SS/269T with consequential penalty exposure under ss. 271D/271E. The Tribunal held that the revisionary directions under s. 263 required the AO to address the statutory bar on cash loans/repayments, and that the lower orders were passed ex parte without adequate evidence. In view of additional documents admitted under r. 29 of the ITAT Rules, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification and fresh action in line with the s. 263 directions; the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465474