https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463352 ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted additions made under s.68 relating to an abnormal rise in cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal held that past withdrawal history cannot be used to estimate amounts in such cases and additions cannot rest on assumption, suspicion or guesswork without material evidence. Where the assessee disclosed and explained the source of deposits and established linkage and availability of cash, mere absence of supporting documents or a time gap between deposits and withdrawals was insufficient to sustain additions. The AO's additions were therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Aug 2025 11:09:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463352 ITAT allowed the appeal and deleted additions made under s.68 relating to an abnormal rise in cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal held that past withdrawal history cannot be used to estimate amounts in such cases and additions cannot rest on assumption, suspicion or guesswork without material evidence. Where the assessee disclosed and explained the source of deposits and established linkage and availability of cash, mere absence of supporting documents or a time gap between deposits and withdrawals was insufficient to sustain additions. The AO's additions were therefore set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463352