Lalitha Padmaja Thallapalli Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that trade advance given to goldsmith for making gold jewellery and excess amount paid has been received back in cash. The same cannot be added under section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 is directed to be deleted.
Facts- The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of retail trade in gold, jewellery, and silver articles, under the name and style of M/s. Shri Aabharanalu. AO completed the assessment by making various additions including addition towards loan creditors of Rs. 36,37,100/- u/s. 68 of the Act, cash advances received from customers for Rs. 64,223/- u/s. 68 of the Act, cash deposits of Rs. 38,42,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act towards cash deposited into the bank during the demonetization period, and addition of Rs. 6,92,285/- u/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards amount received from M/s. Om Santhosh Ranga Jewellers.
CIT(A) disposed of the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards loan creditors, advances from customers and also cash deposits into bank account during the demonetization period. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.
