https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764313 ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold additions under sections 69A and 115BBE for cash deposits during demonetization. The tribunal found that the assessee provided adequate substantiation for cash deposits through detailed schedules showing advances from customers and comparative analysis of cash sales. Evidence revealed consistent cash deposits throughout the year, not concentrated during demonetization period, with deposits from regular business operations including cash sales and customer advances. The tribunal noted that cash sales in FY 2016-17 were actually lower than the previous year, with no cash sales after December 2016. Since the assessee's explanation was supported by books of account accepted by the AO and demonstrated normal business patterns, the CIT(A)'s rejection was deemed pedantic and unwarranted. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 10:23:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764313 ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold additions under sections 69A and 115BBE for cash deposits during demonetization. The tribunal found that the assessee provided adequate substantiation for cash deposits through detailed schedules showing advances from customers and comparative analysis of cash sales. Evidence revealed consistent cash deposits throughout the year, not concentrated during demonetization period, with deposits from regular business operations including cash sales and customer advances. The tribunal noted that cash sales in FY 2016-17 were actually lower than the previous year, with no cash sales after December 2016. Since the assessee's explanation was supported by books of account accepted by the AO and demonstrated normal business patterns, the CIT(A)'s rejection was deemed pedantic and unwarranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764313