TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by your Appellant including binding judgements of Hon. Gujarat High Court and Hon. Ahmedabad Tribunal mainly stating "under this circumstances decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR are distinguishable on facts. Your Appellant submits that both on facts of the case and provisions of Law the decision relied by the Appellant were applicable and if they were distinguishable then the CIT(A) ought to have taken pains to distinguish them on facts of the Appellant and that those judgements relied. On Merits 1. The CIT(A) has erred both in Law and in Fact in confirming applicability of Sec.41(l) the Act and thereby confirming addition of Rs.26 Lakhs of various parties referred in para 2 of his Appellate order. 2.(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax at Rs.43,08,930/- in the A.Y. 2015-16 as against loss of Rs.91,29,526/- in the preceding year. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of books of account of the assessee, it was seen that the assessee declared an amount of Rs.68,80,000/- as deposits from customers. The assessee submitted copy of confirmation before the Assessing Officer which was verified by the Assessing Officer and observed that the assessee has submitted confirmation totalling to Rs.24,00,000/- as against the deposits received that of Rs.37,80,000/- during the year and thus failed to explain the deposits amounting to Rs.13,80,000/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13,80,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts is as per custom and usage and practice of business and the said deposits were received by cheque through banking channel. In both the cases interest has been paid by cheque and TDS has been deducted and paid which shows beyond doubt that none of the Section referred by the Assessing Officer are applicable in the present case. With regard to Section 41(1) of the Act, the amount being trade liability and that no remission or cessation is done, the deposit was not debited to Profit & Loss account and is neither claimed nor allowed as expenses and the amount being outstanding and not written off and payable under Section 41(1) of the Act as the same section does not apply. The Ld. AR further submitted that the amount which are credited are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction of the assessee and only net profit thereon can be added as held by in binding judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sheetalben Saurabh Vora reported in 430 ITR 253 and with regard to sales, GP and NP is as under : -- Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sales Rs.3,22,58,341/- Rs.2,58,10,398/- G.P. Rs.1,66,77,196/- Rs.94,86,403/- 51.7% 36.75% N.P. Rs.43,08,930/- Rs.91,29,526/- Rs.91,29,526/- Less 13.36% Loss 35.37% 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not made any Net Profit and the final income is a loss and, therefore, even by way of alternative submission no profit/income is liable to be added under Section 68 of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR submi....