2016 (4) TMI 1198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 6,10,500/-. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 75,63,523/-. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming estimation of profits made by the Assessing Officer at 8% and confirming the addition of Rs. 14,53,184/-. Ground No. 1 relates to the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. While scrutinizing the return of income, the A.O found that the balance sheet of the assessee has unsecured loans of 8 persons totaling to Rs. 6,10,500/-. The assessee was asked to explain the creditors in the light of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. On receiving no plausible reply, the A.O treated the unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 6,10,500/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the explanation added to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been held to have retrospective effect and as the assessee has deposited the tax before filing the return of income and which fact has not been denied by the revenue authorities, disallowance need to be deleted. 9. Per contra, the ld. D.R. strongly stated that it is not a case of TDS made on the last day of the accounting year, the assessee has deducted tax in month of February and the same was deposited in April, 2007. Therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O has to be upheld. 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts on record. There is no denying that the tax was deposited by the assessee in the month of April, 2007. It is also an admitted fact that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and report of the A.O, the ld. CIT(A) observed that since the assessee has failed to produce books of accounts and other details during the course of the assessment proceedings. The A.O was justified in making the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that in this kind of business a net profit rate of 8% should meet the ends of justice and which is in line with the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the A.O to restrict the addition to 8%. 14. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is before us. The ld. counsel for the assessee once again stated that the books of accounts are audited; therefore, no adverse inference should be drawn. The ld. counsel further drew our att....