https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408816 The tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It found that the appellant satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits during demonetization, citing savings and contributions from family members. The tribunal emphasized the binding nature of CBDT instructions protecting housewives' deposits up to Rs. 2.5 lakh. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 2,11,500 as unexplained money was deleted, setting a precedent for similar cases involving housewives' cash deposits during demonetization up to the specified limit. en-us Fri, 18 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jun 2021 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408816 The tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It found that the appellant satisfactorily explained the source of cash deposits during demonetization, citing savings and contributions from family members. The tribunal emphasized the binding nature of CBDT instructions protecting housewives' deposits up to Rs. 2.5 lakh. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 2,11,500 as unexplained money was deleted, setting a precedent for similar cases involving housewives' cash deposits during demonetization up to the specified limit. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 18 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408816