https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86818 ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, reversing the addition made under s. 68 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found that since the Department had not disputed the genuineness of the assessee's business transactions or books of account, there was no justification for treating bank deposits as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed cryptic, arbitrary and legally deficient for failing to provide a speaking order as required under ss. 250(4) and 250(6). The Tribunal noted the assessment order's self-contradictory nature in rejecting the return while determining income. The addition was directed to be deleted as no undisclosed sources of income had been established. en-us Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:48:17 +0530 Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:48:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86818 ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, reversing the addition made under s. 68 for unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal found that since the Department had not disputed the genuineness of the assessee's business transactions or books of account, there was no justification for treating bank deposits as unexplained. The CIT(A)'s order was deemed cryptic, arbitrary and legally deficient for failing to provide a speaking order as required under ss. 250(4) and 250(6). The Tribunal noted the assessment order's self-contradictory nature in rejecting the return while determining income. The addition was directed to be deleted as no undisclosed sources of income had been established. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:48:17 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86818