https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404679 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to treat bank deposits as unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not admitting crucial lease deeds as evidence and for questioning the reliability of the cash flow statement without proper verification. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee adequately explained certain cash deposits as gifts from the mother, shifting the burden of proof to the revenue authorities, who failed to disprove the explanation. As a result, the additions made by the CIT(A) were deleted. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404679 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to treat bank deposits as unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal criticized the CIT(A) for not admitting crucial lease deeds as evidence and for questioning the reliability of the cash flow statement without proper verification. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the assessee adequately explained certain cash deposits as gifts from the mother, shifting the burden of proof to the revenue authorities, who failed to disprove the explanation. As a result, the additions made by the CIT(A) were deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404679