https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781326 ITAT held that the assessing officer wrongly rejected the assessee's books under s.145(3), finding no recorded defects and noting the assessee had disclosed specified bank note transactions in the tax audit; the AO failed to justify rejection. The tribunal also deleted additions under s.68 read with s.115BBE for unexplained cash credits, observing the auditor recorded the SBNs, the AO's treatment caused double taxation and was based on conjecture. Appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781326 ITAT held that the assessing officer wrongly rejected the assessee's books under s.145(3), finding no recorded defects and noting the assessee had disclosed specified bank note transactions in the tax audit; the AO failed to justify rejection. The tribunal also deleted additions under s.68 read with s.115BBE for unexplained cash credits, observing the auditor recorded the SBNs, the AO's treatment caused double taxation and was based on conjecture. Appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781326