Assessment under Section 144 upheld despite discrepancies; partial relief under Sections 69A, 69C; case remitted for fresh capital gains review

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The ITAT dismissed the plea of violation of natural justice, holding that the assessee was given ample opportunity to explain discrepancies in books and bank statements but failed to provide cogent evidence. Although the AO did not formally reject the books under section 145(3), the assessment under section 144 was upheld as valid due to mismatches found and proper procedural compliance. Additions under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits were partly disallowed, as the tribunal found that taxing the same amount twice was unjustified; instead, profits were to be computed at 7.99% of total bank credits. Consequently, additions under sections 69A and 69C were deleted, and section 115BBE was held inapplicable. Regarding undisclosed credit.........