Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961—Cash Credit—The issue involved in appeal is confirming the addition of Rs. 1,79,06,477/- made by the AO ignoring the peak credit theory concept. During the course of search proceedings, based on certain bank accounts in the name of Shri Uma charan Panda maintained with ICICI Bank found from the premises of the assessee, the AO made addition based on such bank account. The assessee contended the peak credit theory has been evolved in on the principle of avoiding double taxation for the same source of income as when the amount is regularly deposited and withdrawn by the assessee or on his behalf then the entire amount of deposits cannot be taken as undisclosed income of the assessee because amount of withdrawal is also used for re-depositing to the same bank account. Tribunal opined that the AO was not correct in holding that the entire amount of cash deposits is undisclosed income or undisclosed profit of the assessee and thus, the CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the entire addition made by the AO. ITAT partly allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that ”the amount of cash deposit and cash withdrawals have been made by the employee Shri U.C.Panda, on behalf of the assessee and there were regular cash withdrawals and deposits have been made in the same bank, therefore, the entire amount of deposits cannot be treated as undisclosed income or undisclosed profit of the assessee. Thus, the addition made by the AO is restricted to the peak credit amount of Rs. 13,06,500/-“.—NEW LAXMI STEEL AND POWER PVT LTD. vs. Asstt. CIT.[2020] 26 ITCD Online 048 (ITAT-CUTTACK)