Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
- βοΈ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- π Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws β


Just a moment...
Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws β


Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
The assessee received cash credits which were treated as unexplained income u/s 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, observing that apart from the first two payments made on the transaction date, the third payment was received in advance by the assessee through banking channels. The Revenue only raised doubts about the sales bills but did not dispute the receipt of money. The assessee furnished stock statements, and the Revenue did not raise any doubts. Since the sales transaction was declared as revenue receipt, the Tribunal found no infirmity in deleting the addition u/s 68. Regarding the cash deposit addition, the assessee submitted relevant records like sales register, purchase register, stock statement, cash book, bank book, and bank statements. The AO made the addition u/s 68 solely because the assessee showed cash sales on a single day, without appreciating that it was the day of demonetization announcement when people anxiously converted old currency notes into other forms like gold. In the absence of any material to doubt the availability of gold stock, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the cash deposit addition, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.