https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778299 ITAT (Hyderabad) allowed the appeal, holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation were adequately explained as prior cash withdrawals from the same bank account representing pension and interest receipts; household expenses were borne by the assessee's children and withdrawn cash was largely retained for medical needs and later redeposited. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of periodic withdrawals predating the deposits and concluded AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions under s.69A without considering these facts, thus reversing the addition and accepting the assessee's explanation. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778299 ITAT (Hyderabad) allowed the appeal, holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation were adequately explained as prior cash withdrawals from the same bank account representing pension and interest receipts; household expenses were borne by the assessee's children and withdrawn cash was largely retained for medical needs and later redeposited. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of periodic withdrawals predating the deposits and concluded AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions under s.69A without considering these facts, thus reversing the addition and accepting the assessee's explanation. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778299