The assessee, a senior citizen and retired medical professional, deposited cash of Rs. 12.50 lakh during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A. The explanation of the assessee was that the cash represented (i) past withdrawals from a joint bank account with her deceased parents in 2013, and (ii) amounts belonging to her siblings residing abroad, which were kept with her for convenience. The CIT(A) granted partial relief of Rs. 1.50 lakh treating it as past savings but confirmed the balance addition of Rs. 10.50 lakh on the ground of lack of supporting evidence and improbability of holding cash for a long period. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by furnishing documentary evidence including bank records of earlier withdrawals and email communications with siblings. The lower authorities failed to point out any infirmity in the evidences or make any independent enquiry or verification. Mere time gap between withdrawal and deposit, without disproving the explanation, could not justify addition under section 69A. The Assessee also filed an affidavit before the Tribunal reaffirming the submissions made before the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) . The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not bring any material on record to establish that the explanation was false or unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the entire addition was deleted.(AY.2017 -18 )  ITA No. 7253/Mum/2025, dt. 15.04.2026.)