https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781596 ITAT (Hyderabad) allowed the appeal reversing an addition under s.68 that treated cash deposits during the demonetisation period as unexplained. The tribunal found the AO failed to conduct meaningful verification and based the addition on presumption without cogent evidence; the CIT(A) merely endorsed that flawed conclusion. The assessee's audited books, debtor details and confirmations were on record and no defects were identified. A relied-upon HC decision was held distinguishable on facts. The s.68 addition was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781596 ITAT (Hyderabad) allowed the appeal reversing an addition under s.68 that treated cash deposits during the demonetisation period as unexplained. The tribunal found the AO failed to conduct meaningful verification and based the addition on presumption without cogent evidence; the CIT(A) merely endorsed that flawed conclusion. The assessee's audited books, debtor details and confirmations were on record and no defects were identified. A relied-upon HC decision was held distinguishable on facts. The s.68 addition was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781596