https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462710 ITAT Bangalore held that unexplained bank deposits during demonetization fall under Section 69A, not Section 68, but incorrect section citation is not fatal. The tribunal found merit in appellant's claim of double addition regarding inflated sales already included in declared income. ITAT directed AO to exclude inflated sales from income computation, then make separate addition under Section 69A only if appellant cannot reconcile sales with bank deposits. AO must compare demonetization period sales with average daily sales from prior year, considering only the difference as inflated sales. Addition permissible only if cash flow analysis shows insufficient balance for bank deposits. Appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:19:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462710 ITAT Bangalore held that unexplained bank deposits during demonetization fall under Section 69A, not Section 68, but incorrect section citation is not fatal. The tribunal found merit in appellant's claim of double addition regarding inflated sales already included in declared income. ITAT directed AO to exclude inflated sales from income computation, then make separate addition under Section 69A only if appellant cannot reconcile sales with bank deposits. AO must compare demonetization period sales with average daily sales from prior year, considering only the difference as inflated sales. Addition permissible only if cash flow analysis shows insufficient balance for bank deposits. Appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462710