https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461293 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against additions under section 69A for undisclosed income. The assessee successfully explained that bank deposits during demonetization represented repayment of loans previously given to relatives, supported by detailed charts and affidavits. The CIT(Appeals) had confirmed additions arguing that cash withdrawn in previous years could not remain unused for extended periods. ITAT relied on precedents establishing that mere time gaps between withdrawals and deposits cannot constitute undisclosed income, particularly when both transactions are substantiated by bank statements from the same branch and no alternative use of funds is established. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 22:18:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461293 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against additions under section 69A for undisclosed income. The assessee successfully explained that bank deposits during demonetization represented repayment of loans previously given to relatives, supported by detailed charts and affidavits. The CIT(Appeals) had confirmed additions arguing that cash withdrawn in previous years could not remain unused for extended periods. ITAT relied on precedents establishing that mere time gaps between withdrawals and deposits cannot constitute undisclosed income, particularly when both transactions are substantiated by bank statements from the same branch and no alternative use of funds is established. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461293