https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427979 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee in an appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) for A.Y. 2017-18. The dispute centered on the addition of a cash deposit during demonetization as undisclosed income. The ITAT found factual errors in the assessment, noting a discrepancy in the time gap between cash withdrawal and deposit. Considering the genuine cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the demise of the assessee and her husband, the ITAT rejected the addition to undisclosed income, accepting the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit. en-us Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Sep 2022 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427979 The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee in an appeal against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) for A.Y. 2017-18. The dispute centered on the addition of a cash deposit during demonetization as undisclosed income. The ITAT found factual errors in the assessment, noting a discrepancy in the time gap between cash withdrawal and deposit. Considering the genuine cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the demise of the assessee and her husband, the ITAT rejected the addition to undisclosed income, accepting the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427979