LALITHA PADMAJA THALLAPALLI,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1243/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)23 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for customer advances and sales, and that the cash deposits during demonetization were explained by opening cash balance supported by sales bills. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in retail gold and jewellery trade, declared a certain income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made significant additions to her income, including for loan creditors, customer advances, and demonetization period cash deposits, citing lack of evidence and creditworthiness. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether advances received from customers and cash deposits during demonetization were sufficiently explained to avoid additions under Section 68 and 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad

For Appellant: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. A.R

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Lalitha Padmaja Thallapalli, Shop No.20, Upstairs, SVC Shroff Bazar, Kurnool – 518001. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Kurnool.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →