https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753186 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against additions made under sections 69A and 115BBE for cash deposits during demonetization period. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanation that deposits were from cash sales, citing absence of cash sales in previous and subsequent years. However, ITAT found that the AO accepted the books of accounts, trading results, purchases, and sales without rejection. The tribunal held that rejecting cash sales explanation solely based on no cash sales in preceding/subsequent years was insufficient when books were accepted and sales demonstrated. Following precedents from Anantpur Kalpana and Mukesh K. Waghasia cases, ITAT directed deletion of the addition to avoid double taxation. en-us Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 May 2024 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753186 The ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against additions made under sections 69A and 115BBE for cash deposits during demonetization period. The AO and CIT(A) rejected the assessee's explanation that deposits were from cash sales, citing absence of cash sales in previous and subsequent years. However, ITAT found that the AO accepted the books of accounts, trading results, purchases, and sales without rejection. The tribunal held that rejecting cash sales explanation solely based on no cash sales in preceding/subsequent years was insufficient when books were accepted and sales demonstrated. Following precedents from Anantpur Kalpana and Mukesh K. Waghasia cases, ITAT directed deletion of the addition to avoid double taxation. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753186