https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771821 ITAT Mumbai upheld addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee possessed two PANs and failed to provide documentary evidence of surrendering one PAN or substantiate claims that deposits were from business receipts or savings. Despite submissions regarding data processing fees and leather sales, no supporting evidence was furnished. The tribunal found the assessee's explanations inadequate and evasive, noting violation of Section 139A(7) prohibiting possession of multiple PANs. The CIT(A)'s detailed findings, including remand report, were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 May 2025 09:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771821 ITAT Mumbai upheld addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee possessed two PANs and failed to provide documentary evidence of surrendering one PAN or substantiate claims that deposits were from business receipts or savings. Despite submissions regarding data processing fees and leather sales, no supporting evidence was furnished. The tribunal found the assessee's explanations inadequate and evasive, noting violation of Section 139A(7) prohibiting possession of multiple PANs. The CIT(A)'s detailed findings, including remand report, were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771821