https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409401 The case involved assessing cash deposits during demonetization, treating unexplained deposits as income under section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 10,00,000, citing govt. employee conduct rules and lack of declaration. The ITAT upheld this decision due to insufficient evidence for a chit fund claim, failure to prove the deposit source, and govt. employee chit fund prohibition. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and compliance with regulations in income tax assessments. en-us Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2021 09:11:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409401 The case involved assessing cash deposits during demonetization, treating unexplained deposits as income under section 69A. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 10,00,000, citing govt. employee conduct rules and lack of declaration. The ITAT upheld this decision due to insufficient evidence for a chit fund claim, failure to prove the deposit source, and govt. employee chit fund prohibition. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and compliance with regulations in income tax assessments. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409401