https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295405 The appeal was filed by the revenue against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 8,64,000 made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) found that the AO lacked specific evidence to challenge the cash flow statement and deleted the addition, as the unsubstantiated observation by the AO could not alter the nature of the cash deposit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee adequately explained the source of the deposited amount, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. en-us Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:37:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295405 The appeal was filed by the revenue against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 8,64,000 made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) found that the AO lacked specific evidence to challenge the cash flow statement and deleted the addition, as the unsubstantiated observation by the AO could not alter the nature of the cash deposit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee adequately explained the source of the deposited amount, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295405