https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775729 ITAT DELHI upheld that no violation of natural justice occurred as the assessee was given multiple opportunities to explain discrepancies in accounts but failed to provide cogent evidence. The AO's use of best judgment assessment under section 144 was justified despite not formally rejecting books under section 145(3). The addition under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits was partly disallowed, as treating sales and purchases inconsistently led to double taxation; instead, profits were to be computed at 7.99% of total bank credits. Other unexplained money and expenditure additions under sections 69A and 69C were deleted. Undisclosed credits in an undisclosed bank account, claimed as sale proceeds of property, were remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of supporting evidence. The invocation of section 115BBE was held unnecessary. en-us Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775729 ITAT DELHI upheld that no violation of natural justice occurred as the assessee was given multiple opportunities to explain discrepancies in accounts but failed to provide cogent evidence. The AO's use of best judgment assessment under section 144 was justified despite not formally rejecting books under section 145(3). The addition under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits was partly disallowed, as treating sales and purchases inconsistently led to double taxation; instead, profits were to be computed at 7.99% of total bank credits. Other unexplained money and expenditure additions under sections 69A and 69C were deleted. Undisclosed credits in an undisclosed bank account, claimed as sale proceeds of property, were remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication due to lack of supporting evidence. The invocation of section 115BBE was held unnecessary. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775729