The assessee missed an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was recieved in the “spam” folder. The delay in filing appeal was condoned because the assessee was a small business woman, not privy to technicalities. For the A.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-1, the assessee earned her income from taking tuitions and running a beauty parlour. She declared her return of income of Rs. 34,130 upon which was called to disclose her sources of income, copy of bank statements and sources of various cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. The AO noticed several cash deposits of demonetised currency and proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The Commission (Appeals) confirmed the addition. The same was challenged before the Tribunal.  Held that the assessee had sufficient funds in her account. The assessee properly explained that the money in her possession came from her profession as a tutor and owner of a beauty salon. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) had access to all the material, but the authorities ignored it without looking it over and went forward with the addition. The addition made was not sustainable because the assessee’s cash deposit of demonetization currency was properly declared and explained. (AY.2017-18)