https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783562 The dominant issue was whether cash deposits during the demonetization period could be explained as redeposit of earlier cash withdrawals so as to negate addition u/s 69A. The ITAT held that the explanation of hoarding salary cash to avoid claims by an estranged spouse was not credible, particularly as the assessee maintained multiple bank accounts and deposited funds into other savings accounts. In the absence of corroborative material linking past withdrawals to the impugned deposits, and since the withdrawals were made 5-7 years prior and not proximate to demonetization, they could not constitute the source. The partial relief granted by CIT(A) was affirmed; addition of the balance amount was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783562 The dominant issue was whether cash deposits during the demonetization period could be explained as redeposit of earlier cash withdrawals so as to negate addition u/s 69A. The ITAT held that the explanation of hoarding salary cash to avoid claims by an estranged spouse was not credible, particularly as the assessee maintained multiple bank accounts and deposited funds into other savings accounts. In the absence of corroborative material linking past withdrawals to the impugned deposits, and since the withdrawals were made 5-7 years prior and not proximate to demonetization, they could not constitute the source. The partial relief granted by CIT(A) was affirmed; addition of the balance amount was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783562