Sec. 40A(3) & 264 of Income-tax Act, 1961— Business expenditure—It is equally well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process - Reassessment proceedings were initiated on account of the fact that it was discovered that the assessee had misrepresented in his return with regard to the payments madecin cash which were deposited in their bank account and such a transfer was not admissible in the light of provisions of s. 40A(3) and r. 6DD and therefore, in the reassessment proceedings the said amount was added to the income of the assessee and reassessment order was assailed by moving an application under s. 264 and assessing authority has duly considered the application of the assessee and after considering the same has recorded a finding that the assessee has clearly misrepresented in his return as well as audit report with respect to s. 40A(3) and r. 6DDand therefore the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the exceptions as No evidence was led by the assessee to demonstrate that the cash was deposited at the instance of M/s Jalan Synthetics, so as to give benefit of r. 6DD of the Rules, 1962, to the petitioner - AJAI KUMAR SINGH KHALDELIAL V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 312 CTR 473 (ALL)