TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3,60,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made on account of unexplained cash credits? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the facts that there were no creditworthiness of the givers as the givers had shown loss in its return of income during the year under consideration? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the facts that the assesse had not provided the complete bank account statement of givers and also not provided the source of givers from where the company had received a huge amount to the give loan to the assessee. 4. Whether a reasonable opportunity should be given to the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A), the submissions were filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to submit the detailed sources of income of these entities from whom, the unsecured loans have been obtained, which was submitted by the assessee. It was also argued that the Ld. CITA) sent the email on 10.03.2023 and 23.03.2023 to the Assessing Officer to give his comments, but no reply was received by the CIT(A). It was further argued by the Ld. (DR) that the assessee provided the copies of the bank account statements of the parties, from whom, the 'Bharat Food' and 'VIR Foods' had procured the funds, which were advanced to the assessee concern and such copies of the bank account statement were placed on record. Thereafter, a chart ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in this respect have been reproduced at page 23 to 25 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus, the ground of appeal as taken by the department with regard to the Rule 46A is misconceived. It was further argued that even the 'source of source' have been proved beyond doubt and no discrepancy have been pointed out in the documentary evidences, furnished before the Ld. CIT(A), which have been examined at length and, though, the Ld. CIT(A) on three occasions, had shared the information with the Assessing officer as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), but the AO did not respond. Further, our attention was invited to the 'Sub-Rule 4' of Rule 46A, in which, the powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with the powers of the Ld. AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....int Commissioner] (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the 10[Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely: (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the a....