Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period was justified, or whether the deposits were explained by cash sales and receipts from debtors.
Analysis: The assessee's books of account, trading results, cash book, stock position and sales records were accepted and were not rejected by the Assessing Officer. The appellate record showed that the cash deposits were supported by regular business receipts, including cash sales in a business where such cash generation was normal, and that no defect was found in the purchases, sales or stock records. The application of section 40A(3) was held to be misplaced because the assessee was not claiming deduction for cash expenditure but was explaining receipt-side cash inflows. On the facts, the addition under section 68 would amount to treating already recorded sales again as unexplained income.
Conclusion: The addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE was not sustainable and deletion of the addition was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the order deleting the addition was affirmed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where cash deposits are explained by duly recorded cash sales, supported by accepted books of account and unchallenged stock and trading results, an addition under section 68 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion or on the basis of section 40A(3).