Sudhir Chandra Datt, Jabalpur V. ACIT, Jabalpur

ITA 244/JAB/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7122 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I B KHANDEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY SETH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Commercial expediency; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 1 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE S/SHRI NRS GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT, 1148-A, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (MP) (PAN: ACSPD 5225E) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE SAGAR, CAMP - JABALPUR (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY SETH, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI I.B.KHANDEL, DR DATE OF HEARING 04/08/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/09/2020 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, JABALPUR ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 23.8.2013, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CO NTESTING HIS ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE AC T HEREINAFTER) DATED 30.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. THE AP PEAL RAISES THREE GROUNDS, EACH OF WHICH WE SHALL TAKE UP IN SERIATIM. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE (GD.1) IS QUA DISALLOWANCE U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT AT RS.15,74,250/-. THE BASIS FOR THE SAME IS THE INTER EST-FREE ADVANCES (AT RS.114.02 LACS) BY THE ASSESSEE-PROPRIETOR TO HIS C LOSE RELATIVES (RS.98.08 LACS) AND TO AN ASSOCIATE CONCERN (AT RS.15.94 LACS). THE ASSESSEE HAVING INCURRED ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 2 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) INTEREST EXPENDITURE, IN THE MAIN ON BANK BORROWING S (RS.14.41 LACS), AT RS.21.60 LACS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DISALLOWE D INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL U/S. 36(1)(III) TO THAT EXTENT BY INFERRING THE APPLICATION OF THE BORROWED CAPITAL (RS.156.46 LACS) TOWARD THE SAID INTEREST-F REE ADVANCES. THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, PLACING RELIANCE ON CIT VS. MANGLAM PLANTATIONS INDIA (P.) LTD. [2010] 190 TAXMAN 38 (KER) AND CIT VS. SAHU ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD. [2013] 352 ITR 8 (ALL), BOTH OF WHICH CONSIDERED THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN S.A. BUILDERS LTD. V. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC). 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT I NTEREST-FREE CAPITAL, I.E., AT RS.131.03 LACS (AS ON 31.3.2009), AS AGAINST INTERE ST-FREE ADVANCES AT RS.114.02 LACS. NO DISALLOWANCE, ACCORDINGLY, IS CALLED FOR. WHY, THE AO HAS, IN WORKING THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE, ALSO INCLUDED BANK CHAR GES (RS.6.68 LACS), FOR WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SETH, WOULD TAKE US TO PAGE-2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SAME IS CHARGED BY THE BANK F OR NON-FUND BASED FACILITIES OR OTHER BANKING SERVICES PROVIDED BY IT, AND HAS N OTHING TO DO WITH THE INTEREST ON BORROWING/S THEREFROM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIR MED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, MISDIRECTING HI MSELF. 3.2 SURE, IF THAT IS THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE ABSEN CE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IS IRRELEVANT. BUT, THEN, WHERE IS THE STATEMENT OF HIS CASE BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY ? THERE IS NO REFERENCE THERETO EITHER IN THE ASSES SMENT OR THE APPELLATE ORDER. BUT FOR SHRI SETH SUBMITTING SO BE FORE US, REFERRING TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 30.7.2020 BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, WE WOULD BE EQUALLY UNAWARE OF THE SAME. THE PRIMARY BURDEN TO PROVE HI S RETURN, AND THE CLAIMS PREFER THEREBY, IS ON THE ASSESSEE. HIS CASE OF SUF FICIENT INTEREST-FREE CAPITAL TO FUND THE ADMITTED NON-BUSINESS (PURPOSE) ADVANCES, MADE ON INTEREST-FREE BASIS, ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 3 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) HAS NOT BEEN STATED, MUCH LESS SUBSTANTIATED BEFORE THE REVENUES AUTHORITIES, WHO HAVE, WE ARE AFRAID, ALSO NOT APPLIED THEMSELVE S. HOW COULD THEY APPRECIATE, MUCH LESS COUNTER, THE ASSESSEES CASE WITHOUT BEING INFORMED OF THE SAME? THE ISSUE UNDER REFERENCE IS WHOLLY FACTUAL, I.E., WHETHER THE BORROWED FUNDS, ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS A BUSI NESS EXPENSE, HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHOLE FOR THE PURPOSE/S OF HIS BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, AND IF NOT, THE EXTENT OF NON-UTILIZ ATION? THE REVENUE GOES OFF TANGENT, QUESTIONING THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF T HE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE TOWAR D THE SAME. NOT ONLY THAT, IT MAKES PART DISALLOWANCE OF BANK COMMISSION, I.E., O N PROPORTIONATE BASIS, EVEN AS IT, BEING UNRELATED TO THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL, IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 37(1) AND NOT U/S. 36(1)(III). THERE IS NO EXAMINATION, M UCH LESS APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THE BORROWED CAPITAL COMPRISING, AS IT APPEARS, BAN K SECURED LOAN/S IN THE MAIN, THE AVAILABILITY OF SECURED ASSETS SHOULD ITSELF ES TABLISH THE END-USE OF THE BORROWED CAPITAL TO THAT EXTENT, I.E., ALLOWING FOR THE MARGIN STIPULATED. A DISALLOWANCE IS NOT TO BE MADE FOR THE SAKE OF IT, BUT BASED ON CLEAR AND DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, WHICH WE OBSERVE AS COMPLETELY MISSING. IT IS THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, I.E., THE BALANCE-S HEET, BOTH AS AT THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE , I.E., F.Y. 2008-09, THAT SHALL, IN A LARGE MEASURE, CLARIFY THE VARIOUS SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS, DEMONSTRATING THE UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS DUR ING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DO. WHY , IN A CASE OF VARIETY OF SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS, DIRECTED FOR SPEC IFIC PURPOSES OR OTHERWISE, IT IS THE FUND FLOW (OR CASH FLOW) STATEMENT FOR THE Y EAR THAT MAY, IN ADDITION, BE REQUIRED TO THROW LIGHT ON THE SAID UTILIZATION. RA THER, AS AFORE-NOTED, THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL BORROWINGS ARE SECURED LOANS ( AT LEAST AS ON 31.3.2009), SO THAT AN ADEQUATE ASSET BASE COMPRISING THE SECURITY , WOULD ITSELF EXHIBIT THE ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 4 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) UTILIZATION THEREOF FOR THE STATED PURPOSE. FOR EXA MPLE, A STOCK HYPOTHECATION BORROWING, WITH A MARGIN OF 25% (SAY), WOULD IMPLY A UTILIZATION OF BANK BORROWING AND OWN CAPITAL IN THE RELEVANT STOCK I N TERMS OF THE BORROWING CONTRACT. A HYPOTHECATED STOCK OF RS.100/- (SAY), O F COURSE RECKONED AT NET OF TRADE CREDITORS (WHICH ARE SPONTANEOUS LIABILITIES ON THE PURCHASE OF GOODS), WOULD THUS EXHIBIT UTILIZATION OF BANK BORROWING AN D OWN CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.75/- AND RS.25/- RESPECTIVELY. LIKEWISE, FOR A TERM LOAN, WITH THE REPAYMENT THEREOF OVER TIME INCREASING THE OWN CAPI TAL COMPONENT TO THAT EXTENT. IT IS, THEREFORE, INCORRECT FOR THE ASSESSE E TO SAY THAT THE ENTIRE INTEREST- FREE ADVANCE OF RS.114.02 LACS IS FINANCED BY OWN ( OR INTEREST FREE) CAPITAL RS.131.03 LACS, AS INDEED IS THE REVENUES CLAIM TO THE OPPOSITE I.E., OF THE ENTIRE-FREE ADVANCE BY BANK BORROWINGS. IN FACT, TH E STATED FIGURES ARE AS AT 31.03.2009, WHILE THE POSITION COULD BE DIFFERENT, EVEN MATERIALLY, AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR I.E., AS ON 31.03.2008, OR DU RING THE YEAR. 3.3 THE MATTER, ACCORDINGLY, I.E., IN VIEW OF THE F OREGOING, IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON MATERIAL ON, OR TO BE BRO UGHT ON, RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER BEING FACTUALLY INDETERMINATE, THE REFERENCE TO CASE LAW BY EITHER SIDE, MADE DURING THE HEARING, IS INAPPOSITE AND, IN ANY CASE, OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE (GD.2) IS IN RESPECT OF UNDER-V ALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE, IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, WAS FOUND TO HAVE THREE ONGOING PROJECTS AS AT THE YEAR-END, I.E.,: (A) DATT TOWERS: AREA 93,849.28 SQ. FEET @ RS.700/- PER SQ. FT. (B) DATT RESIDENCY: AREA 13,215 SQ. FEET @ RS.700/- PER SQ. FT. (C) DATT TOWNSHIP: AREA 6,850 SQ. FEET @ RS.300/- P ER SQ. FT. ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 5 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) THE AO FOUND IT INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THREE SIMILAR PROJECTS IN THE SAME CITY (OF JABALPUR) COULD VARY SO SIGNIFICANTLY (OVER 233 %) IN THEIR COST. HE INFERRED UNDER-VALUATION FOR THE TOWNSHIP PROJECT AND, ACCOR DINGLY, AN UNDER-STATEMENT OF INCOME TO THAT EXTENT, I.E., RS.27,40,000/- (685 0 SQ. FT. @ RS.400 PER SQ. FT.). THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT THE DATT TOWNSHIP W AS LOCATED ON A HIGHWAY (MANDLA ROAD), ON THE OUTSKIRTS (TILHERI) OF THE CI TY, WHILE THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS ARE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY (I.E., AT NAP IER TOWN AND YMCA), DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A). HOW COULD, HE WOND ERED, THE LOCATIONAL FACTOR RESULT IN AN UNFATHOMABLE INCREASE IN COST BY OVER 200%; THE LOCATION PRIMARILY AFFECTING THE SALE VALUE OF A REAL ESTATE PRODUCT, AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THAT BASIS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WE FIND LITTLE MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE TOWNSHIP PROJECT, WORK-IN-PROGRESS (WIP) OF WHI CH IT CLAIMS AS UNDERVALUED, IS ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF JABALPUR, AS OP POSED TO THE OTHER TWO, LOCATED IN THE MIDST OF THE CITY. LAND COST IS A SUBSTANTIA L PART OF A REAL ESTATE PROJECT COST. LAND PRICES MAY VARY CONSIDERABLY EVEN WITHIN THE CITY, WHILE THE TOWNSHIP PROJECT IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS WHER EAT, ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA AND THE DISTANCE INVOL VED (FROM THE MAIN CITY), THE LAND PRICES ARE MUCH LOWER. IT IS IN FACT FOR T HIS ECONOMIC REASON THAT THE PEOPLE ARE TEMPTED OR FORCED TO SHIFT TO THE OUTER AREAS OF A CITY, THE LIMITS OF WHICH, I.E., ANY DEVELOPING CITY, THUS, KEEP GETTIN G REGULARLY EXTENDED, A COMMON PHENOMENON OF URBAN INDIA. IT IS, THEREFORE, WHOLLY PRESUMPTUOUS TO SAY THAT THE SAID PROJECT ALSO COSTED AS MUCH AS TH E OTHER TWO PROJECTS, INFERRING UNDER-VALUATION ON THAT BASIS. THAT APART, THIS PRO JECT WAS SANCTIONED ON 10.4.2008, WHILE THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS WERE SANCTI ONED MUCH EARLIER, I.E., ON 10.6.2005 (RESIDENCY) AND 6.7.2006 (TOWERS), REFERE NCE TO WHICH IS FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL (GD. 6) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 6 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THERETO, REPRODUCED AT PG. 1 0 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAME, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLETE T O THE SAME EXTENT, I.E., WOULD BE AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF COMPLETION. THE COM PARISON FAILS ON THIS GROUND AS WELL. NO DOUBT, THE DATE (02.10.2008), AS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS THE DATE OF SANCTION OF THE MAP OF THE TOWNSHIP PRO JECT, BEING A PUBLIC HOLIDAY, IS CLEARLY INCORRECT. IT MAY PERHAPS BE THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, WRONGLY MENTIONED. THE QUESTION, HOWE VER, IS IF THERE IS A VALID BASIS FOR COMPARISON, AND WHICH WE FIND AS NOT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, AGAIN, MISDIRECTED HIMSELF, REPRODUCING SEVERAL CASE LAW D ELIBERATING SECTION 145A. THE SAID SECTION PROVIDES FOR INCLUSION OF TAX, DUT Y, OR ANY OTHER LEVY ON THE GOODS BOUGHT AND SOLD, IN THE VALUATION OF PURCHASE S, SALES, AND INVENTORY THEREOF. HOW, WE WONDER, IS THE SAME RELEVANT ? AGAIN, SURE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLARIFIED THE MATTER PROPERLY. THE REVENUE HAVI NG RAISED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF ONE OF HIS ONGOING PROJECTS, THE ASSES SEE OUGHT TO HAVE PROVIDED THE RELEVANT DETAILS, I.E., THE BREAKUP OF COST, JUSTIFYING THE SAME WITH REFERENCE TO HIS ACCOUNTS; THE COST BEING PURPORTEDLY REFLECTED THEREIN. WHY, THERE IS EVEN NO MENTION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LAND PRICE BETWEEN ITS PROJECTS ON ACCOUNT OF LOCATIONAL DIFFERENCE, WHICH FORMS THE NUCLEUS OF T HE ASSESSEES CASE AS PLEADED BEFORE US, (AND WITH, WE MUST ADMIT, MERIT), IN THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN CLEA R IF THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING HIS BOOKS ON PROJECT-WISE BASIS, IN WHICH CASE ALL HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE WAS TO ADVERT THERETO. IT DOE S NOT, FOR THAT REASON, SEEM SO, AND WHICH WOULD HAVE SCOTCHED ANY QUERY BY THE REVE NUE IN THIS REGARD. IN ITS ABSENCE, THE QUESTION AS TO THE BASIS FOR THE ADOPT ION OF THE VALUATION RATE/S, WHICH APPEAR TO BE ESTIMATES, ARISES. SO HOWEVER, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT PROPER TO, FOR TH AT REASON, REMIT THE MATTER BACK. THERE IS, TO BEGIN WITH, NO RAISING OF THE ISSUE BY THE AO, FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE RESPONDED THERETO. AS SHRI SETH WO ULD CLARIFY DURING HEARING, ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 7 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) NO QUESTION IN THIS REGARD WAS PUT BY THE AO, AND I T WAS ONLY ON THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PURPORTED UNDER-VALUATION OF STOCK-IN-TRADE. SUC H A MANNER FOR EFFECTING AN ADDITION CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED. THE ASSESSEES ACC OUNTS ARE AUDITED; THE AUDIT REPORT EXPRESSLY STATES THE BASIS OF VALUATION I.E. , COST OR MARKET PRICE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. COST IS A MATTER OF FACT, AND OU GHT TO HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE JUSTIFIED AND, IN ANY CASE, MATCHED WITH THAT REFLE CTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN. THAT IS, AT NO STAGE HAS TH E ASSESSEE BEEN CALLED UPON TO PROVE HIS CASE. THERE WAS THUS NO OCCASION FOR IT T O FURNISH THE COST DETAILS, WHICH RATHER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE AO. TH E DEFICIENCY IS NOT MADE GOOD AT THE FIRST APPELLATE LEVEL AS WELL, WHEREAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILS TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUE, PURELY FACTUAL IN NATURE. EVE N THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, LAND COST, WITHOUT DOUBT, FORMS AN INTEG RAL PART OF A REAL ESTATE PROJECT COST. HIS CONCLUSION, I.E., ON UNDER-VALUAT ION, IS SANS ANY FACTUAL FINDING, OR EVEN REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS AND, I N FACT, COMPLETELY OUT OF SYNC WITH THE BULK OF HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, I.E., SEC TION 145A, WHICH WE HAVE STATED AS NOT APPLICABLE AND TO BE COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT. FURTHER, THERE HAS BEEN NO EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS . WHAT, THEN, IS THE BASIS FOR THE REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A COST HIGHE R THAN RS.300/- PER SQ. FT. FOR THE TOWNSHIP PROJECT? WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHERE THE REVENUE HAD BASED ITS CHARGE OF UNDER-VALUATION W.R.T. THE ASSESSEES ACC OUNTS, OR FOUND THEM UNRELIABLE, WHICH IS NOT SO. THE STATED BASIS, AS A FORE-NOTED, IS WHOLLY PRESUMPTUOUS. THUS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE COST DETAILS, AS IT OUGHT TO HAVE, WE FIND NO R EASON FOR REMISSION. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT AT NO STAGE WAS THE ASSESSEE CALLED UPON TO PROVE HIS CASE. THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS ON TH E REVENUE, WHICH IT HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO, WITH THERE BEING NO CHARG E OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT COOPERATIVE, OR HAVING NOT, ON ASKING, FURNISHED TH E RELEVANT DETAILS. IT IS A CLEAR ITA NO.244/JAB/2013 8 SUDHIR CHANDRA DATT V. ASST. CIT (AY 2009-10) CASE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE REVENUE. IT WOULD THEREFORE BE UNFAIR TO CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO, AFTER LAPSE OF A NUMBER OF YEARS, JUSTIFY ITS CASE. THE ADDITION IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, MUCH LESS VALID, AS WELL AS SANS ANY FACTUAL FINDING, AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE DIRECT SO. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE OPENING STOCK (FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR) SHALL BE THE CLOSING STOCK AS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES FINAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, I.E ., AS ON 31/3/2009. 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO AN ADDITION FOR RS.19,484 /-, BEING INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDRS, NOT RETURNED. THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL DURING HEARING. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT P RESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON SEPTEMBER 07, 2020 UNDER RULE 3 4(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07/09/2020