https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447908 A 424-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the assessee showed sufficient cause, with the Tribunal applying a liberal construction in favour of substantial justice where no deliberate negligence or mala fides was established. The addition relating to cash deposits during the demonetisation period under section 69A was not finally sustained because the Tribunal found that the source of deposits required proper factual verification, including whether they were linked to professional receipts and banking transactions. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo examination in light of the relevant instructions and surrounding facts. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Jan 2024 22:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447908 A 424-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the assessee showed sufficient cause, with the Tribunal applying a liberal construction in favour of substantial justice where no deliberate negligence or mala fides was established. The addition relating to cash deposits during the demonetisation period under section 69A was not finally sustained because the Tribunal found that the source of deposits required proper factual verification, including whether they were linked to professional receipts and banking transactions. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo examination in light of the relevant instructions and surrounding facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447908