https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77873 The ITAT Delhi considered an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained. The assessee's explanation of cash deposits from sales was rejected by AO and CIT(A) despite not rejecting books of accounts. The Tribunal held that absence of cash sales in prior years doesn't justify rejecting the explanation when books were not rejected and trading results were accepted. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions u/s 69A/68, emphasizing that cash deposits were from declared sales proceeds. Citing cases like Anantpur Kalpana and Mukesh K. Waghasia, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of supporting evidence in such matters. en-us Tue, 28 May 2024 07:35:42 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 07:35:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77873 The ITAT Delhi considered an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE for cash deposited during demonetization as unexplained. The assessee's explanation of cash deposits from sales was rejected by AO and CIT(A) despite not rejecting books of accounts. The Tribunal held that absence of cash sales in prior years doesn't justify rejecting the explanation when books were not rejected and trading results were accepted. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal directed deletion of additions u/s 69A/68, emphasizing that cash deposits were from declared sales proceeds. Citing cases like Anantpur Kalpana and Mukesh K. Waghasia, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting the importance of supporting evidence in such matters. Highlights Income Tax Tue, 28 May 2024 07:35:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77873