IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1804/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Tushar Hasmukhbhai Soni, Income Tax Officer, G-7, Kishore Plaza, Station Vs Ward 3, Road, Anand-388001 Anand PAN : AZTPS 6277 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil H. Talati, AR Revenue by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 04/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement: 05/10/2016 ORDER This appeal by assessee is directed against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Baroda dated 25.03.2013 for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Ground No.4 is not pressed, hence dismissed. 3. other grounds are to effect that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming:- i) Rs.3,76,502/- u/s 68 of Act; ii) Rs.5,61,508/- being shortage in stock as income of assessee. 4. Apropos Ground No.1, ld. Counsel for assessee contends that confirmations in respect of 15 creditors were filed. Besides, in case of Shri Riteshkumar Soni, evidence in respect of 14 vighas of agricultural land was submitted alongwith his confirmation during course of remand report. It is contended that assessee having discharged its primary onus in terms of Section 68; there is no justification in addition. SMC-ITA No. 1804/Ahd/2013 Shri Tushar Hasmukhbhai Soni vs. ITO AY : 2005-06 2 4.1 Apropos Ground No.2, ld. Counsel for assessee contends that during course of survey, no excess stock was found. actual verification of stock showed that books stock was more than actual stock which was purchased out of books of assessee stands acquired from known sources. Therefore, there is no justification in holding shortage as income of assessee. In alternative, it is contended that amount may be treated as undisclosed sales and GP of 10% may be applied. 5. Ld. DR, on other hand, contends that apropos cash credits assessee did not file any credible evidence in discharge of its onus. Except PAN, no other evidence in respect of 14 creditors was found whose cash deposits are below Rs.20,000/-. In absence of any evidence about creditworthiness, addition has been rightly made. 5.1 Apropos addition in case of Shri Ritesh Soni, amount in question is not sale owned by him but is joint family holding. Besides, he did not file any evidence to show that agricultural income was generated. Besides, till decision of appeal after six years, neither amount has been repaid nor any interest has been given. Therefore, assessee has failed to discharge its onus. 5.2 Apropos second ground, order of ld. CIT(A) was relied on. 6. I have heard rival contentions, perused material available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. Apropos Ground No.1, I see no infirmity in orders of authorities below inasmuch as assessee failed to discharge its onus in terms of Section 68 SMC-ITA No. 1804/Ahd/2013 Shri Tushar Hasmukhbhai Soni vs. ITO AY : 2005-06 3 in respect of cash deposits below Rs.20,000/-. Similarly, in case of Shri Ritesh Soni, no credible evidence has been filed to suggest that Shri Ritesh Soni had any creditworthiness to advance this amount, which is further corroborated by fact that even after six years no repayment or payment of interest was made. In view thereof addition is upheld and Ground No.1 is thus dismissed. 6.1 Apropos Ground No.2, it is case of shortage of stock and not excess stock. In view thereof, I find merit in alternative contention of ld. Counsel for assessee that shortage of stock may be treated as undisclosed sales and GP of 10% thereon, i.e., Rs.56,150/- may be added. In view thereof, addition is restricted to Rs.56,150/- and this ground is accordingly partly allowed. 7. In result, assessees appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Court on 5th October, 2016 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ahmedabad; Dated 05/10/2016 Biju T. Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Ahmedabad Tushar Hasmukhbhai Soni v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Anand