https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444475 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 41,31,910/- under section 69A, as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide sufficient reasons to reject the assessee's evidence and explanation regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. Despite procedural lapses, such as non-service of notices under section 142(1) and limited time for adjournment, the Tribunal focused on the substantive merits of the case, concluding that the cash deposits were genuine. The order was pronounced on 12/10/2023. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:38:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444475 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 41,31,910/- under section 69A, as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to provide sufficient reasons to reject the assessee's evidence and explanation regarding cash deposits during the demonetization period. Despite procedural lapses, such as non-service of notices under section 142(1) and limited time for adjournment, the Tribunal focused on the substantive merits of the case, concluding that the cash deposits were genuine. The order was pronounced on 12/10/2023. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444475