Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1295 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 - CIT(A) found that the assessee has submitted all the necessary details of the parties providing the loans - Held that:- The observation of the CIT(A) that the A.O. has given misleading information is itself misleading and does not deserve to be sustained. When it is obvious that there is such close proximity in these companies and the evidence has been given by the A.O. that it is a modus operandi to route money in the form of share application and share money. In such situation, the minimum which was expected from the CIT(A) was to make necessary enquiry and cogently rebut the finding of the A.O. It is settled law from the decision in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] that the Revenue authorities are not supposed to put on blinkers but should look into the surrounding circumstances and the contemporaneous evidence. CIT(A) has passed an order not based upon the correct facts. Hence, we are remitting the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order on all the issues raised by the A.O. - Appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose.
|