https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89524 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclusively determine the source of cash deposits, noting a 15-20 day gap between cash withdrawals and redeposits. While the AO alleged unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A, the tribunal observed that the burden of proof was on the AO to establish undisclosed sources, which was not adequately discharged. The case was restored to CIT(A) to thoroughly examine the assessee's cash flow statement and factual claims, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed in reassessing the unexplained cash deposits. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:04:28 +0530 Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:04:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89524 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclusively determine the source of cash deposits, noting a 15-20 day gap between cash withdrawals and redeposits. While the AO alleged unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A, the tribunal observed that the burden of proof was on the AO to establish undisclosed sources, which was not adequately discharged. The case was restored to CIT(A) to thoroughly examine the assessee's cash flow statement and factual claims, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed in reassessing the unexplained cash deposits. Highlights Income Tax Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:04:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89524