Explained cash deposits during demonetisation upheld where audited books and record supported the assessee's cash-in-hand explanation.

Cash deposits made during the demonetisation period were treated as explained by available cash in hand where the assessee's books were audited, no defect in the books was pointed out, and the Assessing Officer failed to dislodge the explanation with contrary material. The Tribunal's deletion of the section 68 addition was held to rest on supported factual findings, not on conjecture or irrational appreciation of evidence, so no perversity was shown and no substantial question of law arose under section 260A.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the cash deposits during the demonetisation period were explained by available cash in hand, and its deletion of the addition under section 68, suffered from perversity so as to give rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that the assessee's books were duly audited, no defect in the books was pointed out, and the Assessing Officer did not bring any material to dislodge the assessee's explanation. The conclusion that the deposits represented cash in hand was supported by the record and was not shown to be based on conjecture, surmise, or an irrational appreciation of evidence. In the absence of perversity in the factual findings, interference in an appeal under section 260A was not warranted.

Conclusion: The finding that the cash deposits were duly explained was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---