Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the Revenue recorded sworn statements from these employees. The employees said that the amounts credited in their personal bank accounts belonged to the assessee. Confronted with the documents and the statements of his employees, the reply given by the assessee was that, at the distance of the time, when an enquiry was taking place, he was unable to recollect the details. The assessee offered these amounts and claimed to take the peak of the amounts and apply the gross profit. The assessing authority rejected the alternative explanation by the assessee and treated Rs.10,00,000 as an unproven loan and added it to the assessee’s total income. The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s case on the grounds that there was no evidence in support of the information offered by the assessee. The addition of Rs. 10,00,000 was justifiable. It had precisely summed up that the assessee gave an evasive reply and alternatively desired to calculate the peak of the amounts and apply the gross profit. There was no reason to be shown beyond the narrative or any infirmity in the approach. Consequently, the findings recorded on this behalf were to be sustained. As regards valuation of factory building the remand to CIT(A) is affirmed.  (AY. 2004-05 to 2010-11)