Held that\u00a0 the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any discrepancy in the books of account including the cashbook, sales and purchases, nor regarding any stock deficit. The Assessing Officer made additions towards cash deposits purely on suspicion. Lack of response from customers could not be a reason to take an adverse view against the assessee when the assessee was able to furnish sufficient evidence to prove the source of the cash deposits. The Assessing Officer had committed a fundamental mistake in examining cash receipts claimed to have been received by the assessee towards the gold scheme in light of section\u00a068. Moreover, the assessee need not submit confirmation from customers to the Assessing Officer because the law did not mandate collecting the permanent account number of the buyers if sale value of jewellery did not exceed Rs. 2 lakhs in terms of rule\u00a0114B\u00a0of the\u00a0Income-tax Rules, 1962. Compliance with the know your customer norms was mandatory under the\u00a0Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002\u00a0only with effect from May 4, 2023 and not earlier. Furnishing of the names and addresses of persons from whom it had received trade advances was satisfactory discharge of the onus cast upon the assessee. Tribunal also held that \u00a0\u00a0the assessee had sufficient cash balance according to its cash book, which was backed by cash receipts recorded in the books of account before the date of demonetisation. Further, cash receipts were substantiated with sales made to various buyers before the date of demonetisation as supported by sales bills. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. (AY.2017-18<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 68 : Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Cash sales-Trading in jewellery-No discrepancy in books of account-Recording of customers\u2019 Permanent Account Number is not legally mandated for sales not exceeding Rs. 2 Lakhs-Source for cash deposits out of traceable source-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed. [S.115BBE, R. 114B] <\/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-51331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dlV","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51331","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=51331"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51331\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":51332,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51331\/revisions\/51332"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}