Assessee engaged in the business of trading in diamond filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring a loss of Rs. 2.59 crores. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs into its bank account during demonetization period. It was explained that the above said amount represented cash balance available in its books of account, which included advance received from the customers towards sale over the counter. In consequent to which AO held that the assessee has failed to prove cash deposits made by it during demonetization period and accordingly, treated the cash deposits of Rs. 45 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit and assessed the same as income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Further in appeal the Hon\u2019ble CIT(A) also upheld the findings of the Ld. AO and confirmed the additions u\/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved the Assessee filed appeal before the Hon\u2019ble Tribunal.<\/p>\n
The Hon\u2019ble Tribunal relying on Lakshmi Rice Mills v. CIT(1974)\u00a0 97 ITR 258 (Pat)(HC)\u00a0 and ACIT v. Hirapana Jewelers (2021)\u00a0\u00a0 189 ITD 608 (Visakha Patnam)(Trib)\u00a0\u00a0held that it is seen that the advance amount collected from customers, the sales bill raised against them etc., have been duly recorded in the books of account. The impugned deposits have been made from cash balance available with books of account. Also the Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account.\u00a0 Thus, when cash deposits have been made from the cash balance available in the books of account, there is no question of treating the said deposits as unexplained cash deposit (AY. 2017-18)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 68 : Cash Credits-Cash deposit into bank account-Demonetization period-Source explained-Advance from customers-Sales bills raised-Recorded in the books of account-Books of account not rejected-Addition was deleted. [S. 145] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36240","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9qw","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36240"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36240\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36241,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36240\/revisions\/36241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}