https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783312 ITAT Patna allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made u/s 69A on cash deposited during the demonetization period. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in recording that the assessee had not produced the cash book, which was in fact filed before both AO and NFAC. As the AO had not rejected the books of account and had not disputed the recorded sales, treating the same cash sales as unexplained money would lead to impermissible double taxation. ITAT further held that section 69A was wrongly invoked, since the cash deposits were duly explained as recorded sales already offered to tax. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783312 ITAT Patna allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition made u/s 69A on cash deposited during the demonetization period. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in recording that the assessee had not produced the cash book, which was in fact filed before both AO and NFAC. As the AO had not rejected the books of account and had not disputed the recorded sales, treating the same cash sales as unexplained money would lead to impermissible double taxation. ITAT further held that section 69A was wrongly invoked, since the cash deposits were duly explained as recorded sales already offered to tax. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783312