The DCIT, Circle-2, Surat V. M/s. Ujjawal Fabrics, Surat

ITA 2792/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 279220514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SN SOPARKARAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2792/AHD/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-2 SURAT-395 001 / VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS C-4099-4102 MILLENIUM TEXTILE MARKET RING ROAD, SURAT 395 002 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFU 6165 B ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' / RESPONDENT ) ' $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.C. MISHRA, SR.DR #' % $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AR &'( % ) / DATE OF HEARING 22/09/2015 *+, % ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, SURAT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 27/09/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - [1] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20, 90,908/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF NON-GENUINE BROKERAGE EX PENSES WITHOUT ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE AMOUNT O F COMMISSION WAS PAID IN THE MONTH OF MARCH WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING B ILL NO. OF THE CORRESPONDING SALE [2] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.L3, 00,000/-MADE U/S 68 AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON THAT OF RS .52,142/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO P ROVE THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH SUFFICIENT DOCU MENTS AND THE INFORMATION/SIGNATURE OF THE LENDER PARTY GIVEN WER E DIFFERENT. [3] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.37, 35,148/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS SHORTAGE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT BILL WISE SHORTAGE TO PROVE ITS CLAIM AND THE SALE PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER IF THE SHORTAGE IS HI GHER, WHICH IS NOT IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. [4] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,7 8,690/- MADE U/S 69B FOR STOCK DIFFERENCE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THER E WAS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOK STOCK AND THE STOCK GIVEN TO THE BAN K, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY. [5] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. [6] IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET- SIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 24/12/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF BR OKERAGE/COMMISSION ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - EXPENSES OF RS.20,90,908/-, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES OF RS.37,35,148/-, ADDITION U/S.68 FOR UNEXPLAINED CAS H CREDIT OF RS.13,00,000/-, ADDITION U/S.69B FOR STOCK DIFFEREN CE OF RS.3,78,690/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE PAID OF RS.52, 142/-, HENCE TOTAL ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS.82,79,078/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF RS .20,90,908/-. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. HE SUBMITTE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAD NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.21,46,305/- IN THE P&L A/C AS AGENT S COMMISSION. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE LEDGER BY THE A O, AO FOUND THAT EXCEPT IN MARCH IN ALL MONTHS, PAYMENT TO THE AGENT S FOR COMMISSION HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH AS WELL AS CHEQUES AND BILL NUMBE RS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BUT IN THE MONTH OF MARCH HUGE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION OF RS.21,03,552/- WAS PAID AND NO BILL NUMBER HAS BEEN MENTIONED AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID WERE MUTUA LLY RELATED TO EACH OTHER AND RELATED TO ASSESSEE AND THESE PERSON S WERE NOT THOSE WHOSE NAMES APPEARED IN THE REST OF THE MONTHS. IT WAS NOTICED THAT EXCEPT IN CASE OF G.D.ENTERPRISE, COMMISSION OF LAS T YEAR, I.E. AY 2007- ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - 08 WAS PAID IN NEXT YEAR AND IN HALF OF CASE AFTER 3 TO 6 MOTHS AND IN SOME CASE EVEN AFTER 9 MONTHS. HE CONTENDED THAT I N BROKERAGE BUSINESS AS SOON AS AMOUNT IS REALIZED FROM SALES, BROKERS D EMAND FOR THEIR BROKERAGE AND THUS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT T HEY RAISED BILL IN THE MONTH OF MARCH AND PAID THEREAFTER IS NOT ACCEPTABL E. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S HRI S.N.SOPARKAR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY G IVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE PAYMENTS OF C OMMISSION WHICH WERE PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND TDS OF SUCH PAYMEN TS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AS PER LAW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FAC T IN PARA-2.3 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3. . ALL THESE GROUNDS TAKEN BY AO ARE VERY FLIMSY AND SUPERFICIAL GROUNDS. WITHOUT MAKING ANY INVESTIGAT ION OR WITHOUT IDENTIFYING ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS OR VOUCHERS, CONCLUSION DRAWN BY AO CANNOT BE HELD JUS TIFIED. THE APPELLANT HAS PERFECTLY EXPLAINED WITH PROPER REASO NS THAT WHY THE COMMISSION EXPENSES IN THE MONTH OF MARCH IN COMPAR ISON TO OTHER MONTHS OF YEAR ARE HIGH. ALL THE RELEVANT DE TAILS, SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BY APPEL LANT BEFORE AO BUT NOT A SINGLE SIGNIFICANT DEFECT HAS BEEN DET ECTED BY AO. ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - THE DETAILS OF SALES MADE BY AGENTS, METHOD OF PAYM ENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IN MAJORITY OF THE CASES, TDS MADE ON THE PAYMENTS AND ALL OTHER REQUIRED DETAILS HAVE BEEN F ILED BY APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT TH AT THE COMMISSION EXPENSES RE GENUINE AND INCURRED FOR BUS INESS PURPOSES. IN SUCH SITUATION, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICA TION IN DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO, THEREFORE, I DELETE THE AD DITION OF RS.20,90,908/- AND ALLOW THE GROUP OF APPEAL. 4.1. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONT ROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTIN G THAT THE PAYMENTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. IN ABSENCE OF SUC H MATERIAL ESTABLISHING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GENUINE OR BOGUS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, SAME IS REJECTED. 5. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.13 LACS MADE U/S.68 AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON THAT OF RS.52,142/-. THE LD.SR.DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS ON CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE PARTY AND IN COPY OF R ETURN IS DIFFERENT AND ALSO THE SIGNATURE IN CONFIRMATION AND SIGNATURE I N COPY OF HIS RETURN PROVIDED IS DIFFERENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE AB SENCE OF COMPUTATION OF ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - INCOME AND MERELY SUBMISSION OF COPY OF RETURN DO N OT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO O N THE BASIS OF WHIMS AND FANCIES PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING IN PARAS-3.2 & 3.3. OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY APPELLANT THAT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CREDIT, APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF PARTY CONTAINING COMP LETE ADDRESS AND PAN, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN AND COP Y OF BANK STATEMENT ISSUED BY BANKER OF THE CREDITOR REFLECTI NG THAT LOAN WAS GIVEN BY CREDITOR BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX IN THE SAME RANGE-2 IN WHICH APPELLANT IS ASSESSED AND HAS SHOWN TOTAL INCOME AROUND R.5 LAKH S FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO COULD HAVE EASILY EXAM INED THE FACTS RELATED TO CREDITOR FROM THE RECORDS OF HIS OWN RAN GE. AS PER SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT, ALL THESE DETAILS AND DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES CLEARLY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN. I N SUPPORT OF ITS SUBMISSION, APP0 HAS RELIED ON A LARGE NUMBER OF JU DGMENTS OF DIFFERENT COURTS AS MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSION. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPELLANT PLEADED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE AND L EGAL POSITION ON IT. IN THIS GROUND ALSO, AO HAS GIVEN VERY SUPE RFICIAL REASONS TO TREAT THE LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED. THE FACTS RELATED T O ADDRESS, SIGNATURE, ETC. COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED BY HIM FROM THE RECORD OF HIS OWN OFFICE WERE APPELLANT AS WELL AS CREDITOR B OTH ARE ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - ASSESSED. HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY DEFECT OR INGENUINENESS IN THE EVIDENCES GIVEN BY APPELLANT WHICH PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, CAPACITY OF PROVIDING LOAN AND GENUINENES S OF TRANSACTION. IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR IS PROVED BY RETURN OF INCOME FILED AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTI ON IS ALSO PROVED BY FILING THE BANK STATEMENT WHICH REFLECT T HAT PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAY CHEQUE. WHATEVER OBJECTIO NS ARE RAISED BY AO, ARE IRRELEVANT AND SUPERFICIAL AND NO T SUSTAINABLE. IN THE LIGHT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY APPELLANT, THE CREDIT OF RS.1,300,000/- AND INTEREST PAID ON IT AT RS.52,142/- IS HELD AS GENUINE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS DELE TED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5.2. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD.CIT( A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT THAT THE DEPOSITORS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AN D THE ENTIRE RECORDS WERE AVAILABLE TO VERIFY THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF SUPERFICIAL REAS ONS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT THAT THE LOAN IS GENUINE, SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IN THE FORM OF INCOME TAX RETURN, ETC. WAS FURNISHED TO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST THEREOF. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME I S HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF AD DITION OF RS.37,35,148/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS CL AIM OF SHORTAGE. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AVERAGE SALE P RICE OF HIS GOODS AT ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - RS.36.29 PER METER IN AY 2008-09 AND RS.36.93 PER M ETER IN AY 2007- 08. AS PER THE AO, THE YIELD FOR THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL WAS 79.86% WHILE THAT IN PREVIOUS YEAR, IT WAS 81.64%. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT IN THE TEXTILE MILL PROCESSING, THERE IS NORMA L SHORTAGE OF 15 TO 17% WHILE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORTAGE OF 20.14%. ON TH IS BASIS, THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N. 6.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MA KING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING IN PAR A-4.3 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D FOUND THAT AS EARLIER TWO ADDITIONS, THIS ADDITION IS ALSO MADE B Y AO ON VERY WEAK GROUNDS. THE BASIS GIVEN BY AO FOR MAKING DISA LLOWANCE THAT SHORTAGE OF GOODS ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORKERS IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE THEORY, HIGHER SHORTAGE LEADS TO HIGHER SALE PRICE OF FINISHED GOODS AND ONLY SAMPLE BILLS WERE PRODUCED BY APPELLANT, ARE AGAIN SUPERFICIAL AND FLIMSY GROUNDS. AS PER CH ART GIVEN IN THE ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - SUBMISSIONS, APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BETTER RESULTS IN THE FORM OF TURNOVER, GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEAR. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY APPELLANT HAVE N OT BEEN REJECTED AND ACCEPTED BY AO AS COMPLETE AND WITHO UT ANY ERROR. NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY AO IN THOSE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. IN PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS, DIFFERENT COURTS AND TRIB UNALS HAVE HELD THAT UNLESS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ARE RE JECTED, NO ESTIMATION CAN BE MADE. THE NORMAL SHORTAGE WORKED OUT BY AO FROM 15% TO 17% IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IS BASED O N WHICH DETAILS IS NOT MADE CLEAR BY AO. SUCH DETAILS ARE NOT CONFR ONTED TO APPELLANT WHICH IS CLEARLY VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUS TICE. WHY ONLY 2% OF SHORTAGE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED, IT IS NOT MADE CLEAR BY AO. THE MAJOR PART OF JOB WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY OUTSIDE PARTIES TO WHOM PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ACCORDING TO QUALITY AND QUANTITY PRODUCED BY THEM AND IN THIS RESPECT ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE AND IN T HESE DETAILS NO DEFECT COULD BE FOUND BY AO. SIMPLY BY SAYING TH AT TABLE SHOWING BILLS-WISE SHORTAGE WAS NOT PROVIDED BY APP ELLANT TO AO DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO. ONUS WAS ON HIM TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT BOOK RESULTS SHOWN BY THE A PPELLANT ARE NOT CORRECT BY INDENTIFYING THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AO HAS FAILED T DO SO. IN SUCH SITUATION , IT IS HELD THAT AO HAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.37,38,14 8/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE WHICH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, I DELETED THE ADDITION AND ALLOWED THE GROUND OF APPE AL. 7.1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT TH AT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT RESORTED TO THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT, HOWEVER, HE MADE ESTIMATION ON THE BASIS THAT THE YIELD AS DECLARED IN EARLIER YEAR WHICH WAS HIGHER THAN AS CLAIMED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL . THE BASIS OF SUCH ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - FINDING AS PER AO IS THAT NORMALLY IN TEXTILE MILL PROCESSING, THERE IS PERCENTAGE OF SHORTAGE AT 15 TO 17% IN THE YIELD. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS AS TO WHY HE IS NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ALL DETAILS BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO YIELD. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.3,78,690/- MADE U/S.69B OF THE ACT. THE LD.SR.D R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATEMENT OF STOCK AS FURNISHED TO THE BANK OF BARODA AND SUBMITTED TO TH E DEPARTMENT WAS THAT THE SALE HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 31/03/2010 AT KOLK ATA BRANCH AND THE DATE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH A HUGE SALE CANNOT BE LEFT BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT NON-FURNISHING OF THIRD PARTY, I.E. BANKER CANNOT BE THE ONLY REASON TO DISALLOW THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A QUANTITATIVE DIFFE RENCE OF 11652 METERS. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N ON THE GROUND THAT ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 11 - THE AO HAS SELECTIVELY TAKEN THE FIGURE OF DIFFEREN CE, BUT CONVENIENTLY IGNORED THE RECONCILIATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS FINDING ON FACT IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE, THEREFORE THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF STOCK FURNISHED TO ITS BANK ER AND SHOWN TO THE REVENUE. THE ONLY QUESTION LEFT WITH US IS WHETHER THE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO THE BANKER BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECT OR NOT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE QUANTITATIVE FIGURE OF STOCK GIVEN TO ITS BANKER AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE AUDIT REPORT WHICH W AS ENCLOSED WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE FACT T HAT THERE WAS A QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK FURNISHED TO T HE BANK AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE-DEPARTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF LD.CIT(A), AS IT IS NOT THE CAS E OF ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY HIM FOR BANK AND DECLARED TO REVEN UE IS DIFFERENT BUT THE QUANTITY MATCHES. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY SET ASID E THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2792/AH D/2012 DCIT VS. M/S.UJJAWAL FABRICS ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 12 - 10. GROUND NOS.5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH RE QUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 21 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 10 /2015 0)..& , '.&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-II, SURAT 5. 5'6 &23 , ) 23 , , 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 689 ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, #5 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 14.10.15(DICTATION-PAD 14 .10.15 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..15.10.2015 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.21.10.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.10.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER