https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773186 ITAT Surat upheld addition of Rs. 6,00,000 under section 69A for unexplained deposits during demonetization. Assessee claimed amount was advance received from customer, but property registration occurred in AY 2019-20 while deposits were made in AY 2017-18. No supporting evidence including buyer details, bank statements, or confirmations were provided despite opportunities. Court held assessee failed to discharge onus of proving source of deposits. Alternative ground for restricting addition to 2% of net profit was rejected as amount represented unexplained money, not turnover. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jun 2025 08:29:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773186 ITAT Surat upheld addition of Rs. 6,00,000 under section 69A for unexplained deposits during demonetization. Assessee claimed amount was advance received from customer, but property registration occurred in AY 2019-20 while deposits were made in AY 2017-18. No supporting evidence including buyer details, bank statements, or confirmations were provided despite opportunities. Court held assessee failed to discharge onus of proving source of deposits. Alternative ground for restricting addition to 2% of net profit was rejected as amount represented unexplained money, not turnover. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773186