Deepak Garg, Panchkula V. ACIT, Panchkula Circle , Panchkula

ITA 1667/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7506 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KULTEJ SINGH BAINS
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHA, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1667/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHREE DEEPAK GARG, VS. THE ACIT PLOT NO. 9, INDUSTRIAL AREA PANCHKULA CIRCLE PHASE-1, PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. ABGPG2325M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. ATUL GOYAL REVENUE BY : SHRI. KULTEJ SINGH BAINS DATE OF HEARING : 10/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/07/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA DT. 04/10/2017. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN U PHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,55,637/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF CLOSING STO CK AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. A.O. 3. BRIEF FACTS O F THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 02/11/2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 308780/-. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUS INESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28/09/2017. 4. DURING THE SURVEY TWO AUDIT REPORTS HAVE BEEN DU LY SIGNED BY TWO DIFFERENT AUDITORS WERE FOUND AT THE PREMISES WHERE IN THE CLOSING STOCK VARIED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,55,537/- AMONG THE TWO BALANCE S HEETS. 5. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDING IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE OTHER BALANCE SHEET WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING BANK LIM IT, BASED ON WHICH THE 2 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VALUATION OF STOCK AT RS. 56,99,023/- AGAINST THE STOCK OF RS. 42,43,386/-. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM THE ADDITION ON THE GROUN DS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DISCREPANCY IN THE FIGURES OF CLO SING STOCK. 7. BEFORE US THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEES UNIT WAS AN EXCISABLE UNIT AND MAINTAIN STOCK RECORD IN RESPECT OF FINISHED GO ODS. HENCE, THE DISCREPANCY OF THE STOCK CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO. 8. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATTER ON RECORD. THE FACTUM OF UTILIZATION OF THE EITHER OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR OBTAINING BANK LOAN HAS NOT BEEN BOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECORD. HENCE, IN FITNESS OF T HINGS WE RESTORE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT DENOVO BY TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE OF THE STOCK REGISTER AND THE BALANCE SHEET / AUDIT RE PORT WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, BASED ON WHICH CASH CREDITS / OD / LOAN HAS BEEN OBTAINED. 10. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11/07/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR