If 44ADA presumption can be questioned, then what's the point.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaXlYX6BlqP/?igsh=dWF4eTBlY2IzbzMx
Just in case you can't open, what he is saying is a lawyer had filed returns under 44 ADA and shown more than 50% as income (30 lac revenue,16 lac income) but his 25 lakh received via bank transfer was lying as it is as balance in the account. Based on this balance, department sent him a notice for income of rupees 50 lacs.
Unless this CA is lying or not giving the full picture in the short video, simply having balance money in account in a year leading to dept taking such steps makes the entire excercise and also the whole section futile. Because there comes the question, if more than 50% earned in one year left as balance is counted as more income, then less than 50% earned or some years losses draining balances should also be reduced income. How do we determine that? By keeping books and calculating actual profit. If that's what needs to be done, why have the section?