TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of ₹ 67,45,000/- u/s.68 of the Act for unexplained unsecured loans." 3. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 67,45,000/- being the credit in the account of the following parties: i) Dilip Weaving Works ₹ 1,50,000 ii) Dilip Silk ₹ 20,40,000 iii) Rajesh Rayon ₹ 1,30,000 iv) Siddharth Silk ₹ 50,000 v) Shiv Silk ₹ 24,35,000 vi) Shreenathji Silk ₹ 19,40,000 Total ₹ 67,45,000 That the above credit balances were found by the Assessing Officer as per the audit report submitted along with return o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer. Even if the creditor was assessed with any other Assessing Officer from their balance sheet filed with income tax return the credit balance of the assessee can be easily verified. In support of the assessee's contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, 258 ITR 360 (Guj) 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the authorities below. He has submitted that the orders of the lower authorities are quite fair and reasonable. The assessee has not produced either his own books of accounts or the books of accounts of the creditors, and therefore, the credit balance in the assessee's account could not be verified. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opportunity to the assessee to produce these bank statements before him. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer will decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Before we part with the matter, we may mention that the assessee has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corporation (supra) and the decision in the case of Rohini Builders (supra), which the Assessing Officer will consider while adjudicating this issue. 6. Ground No.2 of the appeal reads as under: "2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the addition of ₹ 1,95,829/- out of addition of ₹ 2,32,586/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... turnover has increased more than three times as compared to the last year. In such circumstances, the application of the same GP rate as declared in the last year cannot be said to be justified. The contention of the learned counsel that the assessee could achieve such substantial increase in the turnover only by selling the goods at lesser margin cannot be brushed aside lightly. At the same time, since the assessee did not produce the books of accounts, the rejection of the book results by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be unjustified. Considering the facts of the case, in our opinion, it would meet ends of the just, if it is directed that the GP rate of 9% be applied as against 8.27% declared by the assessee. We order accordingl....