KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA, MUMBAI V. JCIT - 17(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2858/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4109 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH B GUPTE
• Keywords: Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 143(1); 10

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 ) KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA C - 111, KARMAKSHETARA, SSS NAGAR, ANTOP HILL, KOLIWADA, SION (EAST), MUMBAI 400 037 VS. JCIT 17(2) ROOM NO.123 - A, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN ABDPM3885F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJESH B. GUPTE , A.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH , D.R DATE OF HEARING: 01 .05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 0 8 .05.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 57, MUMBAI FOR AY. 2012 - 13, A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND A.Y. 2014 - 15, DATED 01.02.2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER S EC.143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT I - T ACT ) . AS COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE BEING TAKEN UP AND DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : P A G E | 2 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 87,233/ - UNDER SEC. 14A RULE 8D AGAINST EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS FROM OWN FUNDS AND NOT ACQUIRED FROM BORROWED FUN DS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND/OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN DYES, CHEMICALS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 ON 24.09.2012, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,00,42,842/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREAFTER SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE I.T ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED ITS CLOSING STOCK AT R S.2,87,04,589/ - ON 31.03.2012. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS GATHERED BY THE A.O, IT WAS NOTICED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEB ITED THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF COST S WHICH WERE DI RECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPORTS/PURCHASE S OF RS.49,15,11,569/ - MADE BY HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS OBSERV E D BY THE A.O THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.78,72,116/ - VIZ. (I) INTEREST EXPEN DITURE: RS.45,76,054/ - ; AND (II) TRANSPORT EXPENSES: RS.32,96,062/ - WERE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPORT/PURCHASE OF MATERIAL OF RS. 49,15,11,569/ - , PART OF WHICH MATERIAL WAS LYING WITH HIM AS ON 31.03.2012 AS CLOSING STOCK . THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE AFORESAID IMPORT/PURCHASE OF RS. 49,15,11,569/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, THE A.O WA S OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT COULD SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE METHOD FIRST - IN, FIRST - OUT (FOR SHORT FIFO ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF ITS CLOSING STOCK . AS SUCH , T HE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,59,737/ - WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CLOSING P A G E | 3 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) STOCK OF RS.2,87,04,589/ - . HOWEVER, AS THE SAME WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK, THER EFORE, HE CALLED UPON HIM TO PUT FORTH AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE EXPENDITURE TO THE SAID EXTENT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT MAY NOT BE ADDED TO TH E VALUE OF HIS CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK WAS VALUED BY HIM AS PER THE A CCOUNTING STANDARD 2 ( FOR SHORT AS 2 ) , AS PER WHICH THE INVENTORY WAS TO BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET VALUE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS HE HAD CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAID METHOD FOR VALU ING HIS INVENTORY, HENCE NO ADVERSE INFERENCES ON THE SAID COUNT WERE LIABLE TO BE DRAWN IN HIS HANDS. APART THERE FROM, IT WAS ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE VALUATION O F THE INVENTORY WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANAGEMENT DECISION/STANDARD PRACTICE. HOWEVER, THE A.O AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE SAME. IN FACT, THE A.O HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK, WORK - IN - PROGRESS, FINISHED PRODUCTS , RAW MATERIALS AND STORES AND PACKING MATERIAL COULD NOT BE BASED ON THE MANAGEMENT DECISION/STANDARD PRACTISE , AS THE SAME IN ITSELF WAS NOT BACKED BY ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A. O THAT AS THE VALUATION O F THE INVENTORY WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATION TO SEC.145A(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD CONSISTENTLY BEEN VALUING ITS INVENTORY BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID METHOD DID NOT MERIT ACC EPTANCE. THE A.O WHILE CONCLUDING AS HEREINABOVE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. (1991) 188 ITR 44 (SC) . ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE COULD BE DISTURBED , IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE INCOME CANNOT BE CORRECTLY DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTING POLICY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. APART THERE FROM, THE A.O P A G E | 4 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE A.O WAS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN QUESTIONED IN THE PAST. IN FACT, THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THA T AS THERE WAS NO ESTOPPEL IN THE INCOME TAX MATTERS, THEREFORE, THE A.O WAS NOT BOUND BY THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS , THE A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,59,737/ - , BEING THE EXPENDI TURE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CLOSING STOCK , AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY A SSAILED THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.4,59,737/ - , AS THE CORRESPONDING RELIEF HAD BEEN GRANTED BY ADDING THE SAID VALUE TO HIS OPENING STOCK FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2013 - 14. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) DID NOT PROCEED W ITH THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE , AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT P RES SING THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE SAID CONCESSION OF THE LD. A.R , THE G ROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSISTENTLY BEEN VALU ING ITS INVENTORY AT COST OR MARKET VALUE, WHICHEVER IS LESS, WHICH WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH AS - 2 ISSUED BY THE I NSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT S OF INDIA. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A.R THAT THE A.O HAD ERRED IN PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATING THE TRANSPORT EXPE NSES , OTHER THAN THE INWARD EXPENSES , TO THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O HAD FAILED TO COMPREHEND THAT THE TRANSPORT P A G E | 5 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) EXPENSES WHICH WERE IN THE NATURE OF DIRECT EXP ENSES COULD ONLY BE ALLOCATED TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK . APART THERE FROM, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR THE IMPORT/PURCHASES OF RS.49, 15, 11,569/ - WERE CONCERNED , THEREFORE, IT WAS I NCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATE THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2012. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O WITH NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO E XCLUDE THE AFORESAID EXPENSES VIZ. (I) TRANSPORT EXPENSES; AND (II) INTEREST EXPENSES, TO THE EXTENT THE SAME WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF DIRECT EXPENSES WHICH COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) THOUGH DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IN CASE THE MATTER IS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O, THEN A SIMILAR DIRECTION MAY ALSO BE G IVEN FOR MAKING NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS INSOFAR THE OPENING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS CONCERNED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS PER SEC.145A(A) THE VALU ATION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTORY FOR THE PURPOSE S OF DETERMINING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE VIZ. (I) IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE; AND (II) FURTHER ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ANY TAX, DUTY , CESS OR FEE (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BRING THE GOODS TO THE PLACE OF ITS LOCATION AND CONDITION AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION . IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID SETTLED POSITION OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT P A G E | 6 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) MER ELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING THAT WAS REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM WAS NOT INCLUDIN G THE DIRECT EXPENSES VIZ. (I) INWARD TRANSPORT CHARGES; AND (II) INTEREST EXPENSES , IN THE VALUE OF HIS INVENTORY, THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLD T HE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE VALUATION OF THE INVENTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE WORKED OUT AFTER ALLOCATING THE DIRECT EXPENSES RELATABLE TO THE SAME. HOWEVER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE EXPENSES OVER AND ABOVE THE DIRECT EXPENSES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED AND THEREIN PROPORTIONALLY ALLOCATED TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AT THE SAME TIME, OUR AFORESAID VIEW WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE INSOFAR TH E OPENING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATTER IN ALL FAIRNESS REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O, WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THEREIN RESTRICT THE ALLOCATION OF THE TRANSPORT CHARGES AND THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK , ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE SAME IS ATTRIBUTABLE AS A DIRECT EXPENDITURE TO THE PURCHASES OF RS. 49,15,11,569/ - CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. APART THERE FROM, A SIMILAR EXERCISE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE CARRIED OUT INSOFAR THE OPENING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE SHA LL DURING THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDING FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS WITH THE A.O TO FACILITATE GIVING EFFECT TO OUR AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. P A G E | 7 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) ITA NO. 2859/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2013 - 14 9. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 ON 27.09.2013, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,21,35,770/ - . T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE I - T ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 1 0 . DURING THE C OURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ALLOCATE CERTAIN DIRECT EXPENSES , VIZ. (I) INTEREST EXPENDITURE; AND (II) TRANSPORT EXPENSES, WHILE WORKING OUT ITS CLOSING STOCK OF RS.3,20,13,613/ - . ON THE BASIS OF HI S AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS , THE A.O ATTRIBUTED A PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THE AFORESAID EXPENSES TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,07,706/ - . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY ASSAILED THE AFORESAID ADDITION BEFORE THE CIT (A), WHO UPHELD THE SAME . 1 1 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL REMAINS THE SAME AS WERE THERE BEFORE US IN THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA NO. 2858/MUM/2018, THEREFORE, OUR ORDER THEREIN PASSED SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E A.Y. 2013 - 14 IN ITA NO .2859/MUM/2018. 1 2 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. P A G E | 8 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) ITA NO. 28 60 /MUM/2018 A.Y. 201 4 - 1 5 1 3 . WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2014 - 15. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2014 - 15 ON 26.09.2014, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,23,61,680/ - . T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE I.T ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 1 4 . DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ALLOCATE CERTAIN DIRECT EXPENSES VIZ. (I) INTEREST EXPENDITURE; AND (II) TRANSPORT EXPE NSES WHILE WORKING OUT ITS CLOSING STOCK AT RS.2,28,970/ - . ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, THE A.O ATTRIBUTED A PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THE AFORESAID EXPENSES TO THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,28,970/ - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 5 . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY ASSAILED THE AFORESAID ADDITION IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) , WHO UPHELD THE AFORESAID ADDITION . 1 6 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPE AL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT AS THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL REMAINS THE SAME AS WERE THERE BEFORE US IN ASSESSES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ITA NO. 2858/MUM/2018, THEREFORE, OUR ORDER THEREIN PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE SAID APP EAL SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2014 - 15 I.E ITA NO. 2860/MUM/201 8. 1 7 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18 . THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 I.E ITA NO.2858/MUM/2018, A . Y 2013 - 14 I.E ITA NO.2859/MUM/2018 AND A . Y P A G E | 9 ITA NOS.2858 TO 2860/MUM/2018 AYS. 2012 - 13 TO 2014 - 15 KETAN SURESHCHANDRA MEHTA VS. JCIT,17(2) 2014 - 15 I.E ITA NO. 2860/MUM/2018 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8 . 05.2019 S D / - S D / - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 0 8 .05.2019 PS. ROHIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI