The ITO, Ward-11(4), Ahmedabad V. Smt. Patasidevi Bhanwarlal Jain, Ahmedabad

ITA 3495/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80556 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SR. NO. ITA NO. & ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1-2 ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN 65, HIRABHAI MARKET DIWAN BALLUBHAI SCHOOL ROAD AHMEDABAD. PIN : ADUPJ 0140 R ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD. 3 159/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI BHANWARLAL VANSRAJ JAIN 174, NEW CLOTH MARKET AHMEDABAD. PAN : ABBPJ 6245 Q ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD 4 160/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI DILIPKUMAR BHANWARLAL JAIN 65, HIRABHAI MARKET, DIWAN BALLUBHAI SCHOOL ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ADIPJ 7401 P ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD. 5 161/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI SUNILKUMAR BHANWARLAL JAIN 65, HIRABHAI MARKET, DIWAN BALLUBHAI SCHOOL ROAD,AHMEDABAD PAN : ACXPJ 9677 P ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD 6 162/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN 65, HIRABHAI MARKET, DIWAN BALLUBHAI SCHOOL ROAD,AHMEDABAD PAN :ABDPJ 4976 A ITO, WARD-11(4) 7 163/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 SMT. SAMTADEVI RAJESHKUMAR JAIN 174, NEW CLOTH MARKET, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ADJPJ 1605 N ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD. ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -2- 8 164/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 SHRI BHARATKUMAR B. MANDOWARA 65, HIRABHAI MARKET DIWAN BALLUBHAI SCHOOL ROAD AHMEDABAD. PAN : AJLPM 4595 L ITO, WARD-11(4) AHMEDABAD. /VS. ( (( ( -. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( ( /0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR 4& 1 2 ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR 5 1 &(* / DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014 678 1 &(* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/12/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CO BY THE ASSESSEE, SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 AND OTHER APPEALS PERTAINING TO THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES OF THE SAME G ROUP ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 . SINCE THE APPEALS INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUES AND PERTAIN TO THE SAME GR OUP, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y.2007-08 (REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.PATASI DEVI BH ANWARLAL JAIN) 2. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,12,412/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF UNEXP LAINED STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -3- 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER THE EXP IRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REC ONCILE ITS UNEXPLAINED STOCK FOUND DURING THE SURVEY, AND THEREFORE, THE U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE AO. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SU PPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK, AND THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE IN THIS CASE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR. HE HAS FILED A CHART WHICH SHOWS T HAT THE ADDITION OF RS.24,61,890/- CONSISTS OF THREE PARTS VIZ. DIFFERE NCE DUE TO OPENING STOCK VALUE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO AT RS.6,94,502/-, SE CONDLY, TOTALING MISTAKE AMOUNT OF RS.1,03,406/-, AND THE AMOUNT OF HEENA FABRICS WRONGLY TAKEN IN TOTALING AT RS.50,895/-. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.24,1 2,412/- IS A PATENT MISTAKE AS THE OPENING STOCK FIGURE WAS ONLY RS.6,9 4,502/-, AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE SAM E FOR WORKING OUT THE OPENING STOCK AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, FOR THE PUR POSE OF CALCULATING THE EXCESS STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED OTHER ISSUES OF TOTALING MISTAKE AN D THE AMOUNT OF HEENA FABRICS TAKEN IN TOTALING IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER, F OR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION SEPARATELY. THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE OPENING STOCK OF THE RELEVANT YE AR WAS DEFINITELY A PART OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED WHILE WORKING OUT ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -4- THE OPENING STOCK AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. HE RE LIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY A ND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK WHILE WORKING OUT THE OPENING STOCK AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULA TING THE EXCESS STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF SURVEY, AND OPENING STOCK OF RELEVANT YEAR WAS ONLY RS.6,94,502 /- AND NOT RS.24,12,412/- AS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE OPENING STOCK OF CURRENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SURV EY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, HAS TO BE CONSIDERED F OR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE OPENING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE, AS O N THE DATE OF SURVEY, FOR DETERMINING THE EXCESS STOCK AS PER THE ACCOUNT BOO KS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, AND ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MI STAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAKE O PENING STOCK OF CURRENT YEAR AND WORK OUT THE EXCESS STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, AND THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED, AND THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE BEING WITHOUT ANY MERIT, IS DISMISSED. CO NO.20/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y.2007-08 (ASSESSEES CO IN THE CASE OF SMT.PATASIDEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN) 6. THE GROUNDS OF THE CO ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -5- 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE E4XCESS ST OCK SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN. 7. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES. THE ISSUE REGARDING TOTA LING MISTAKE OF RS.1,03,406/- AND ADDITION OF AMOUNT OF HEENA FABRI CS OF RS.50,895/- WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A), AND THEREFORE, THE I SSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS, AFTER ALLOWING RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY . ITA NO.159/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CA SE OF SHRI BHANWARLAL VANSRAJ JAIN) 8. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -6- STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STO CK SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN. 9. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE VALUE OF OP ENING STOCK NOT TAKEN WHILE DETERMINING THE EXCESS STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE RE IS NO GRIEVANCE LEFT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO UNDECIDED ISSUE IN THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AND THERE FORE, THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. ACCORDING LY, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NO ISSUE ARISES FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CI T(A) AND THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.160/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CA SE OF SHRI DILIPKUMAR BHANWARLAL JAIN) 10. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING STHE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -7- STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STO CK SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN. 11. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF BALES VALUE TAKEN TWICE BY THE AO AT RS.52,324/- WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A), AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS, AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.161/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CA SE OF SHRI SUNILKUMAR BHANWARLAL JAIN) 12. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STO CK SIMPLY ON THE ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -8- BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN W ITHOUT SPECIFICALLY EXAMINING THE APPELLANT. 13. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF BALES VALUE TAKEN TWICE BY THE AO AT RS.16,144/- WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A), AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS, AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.162/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CA SE OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN) 14. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STO CK SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT. 15. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING THE VALUE OF O PENING STOCK NOT TAKEN WHILE DETERMINING THE EXCESS STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE RE IS NO GRIEVANCE LEFT TO ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -9- THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO UNDECIDED ISSUE IN THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AND THERE FORE, THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. ACCORDING LY, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NO ISSUE ARISES FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US FROM THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CI T(A) AND THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.163/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CA SE OF SMT. SAMTADEVI RAJESHKUMAR JAIN) 16. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STO CK SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN. 17. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE TOTALING MISTAKE OF RS.2,75,307/ - AND THE AMOUNT OF HEENA FABRICS TAKEN IN TOTALING OF RS.22,173/- AND OF THE BALES VALUE ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -10- TAKEN TWICE BY THE AO AT RS.23,251/- WAS NOT ADJUDI CATED BY THE CIT(A), AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN THE GROUNDS OF THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION T O ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS, AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.164/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (IN THE CA SE OF SHRI BHARATKUMAR B. MANDOWARA) 18. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS ON NOT ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THOSE MIS TAKES WERE COMMITTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY WHILE ASCERTAINING TH E PHYSICAL STOCK VIS A VIS THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY. 2.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONSIDERING ONLY ONE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY SURVEY PARTY I.E. REG ARDING NOT CONSIDERING THE CLOSING STOCK OF 31.3.2006. THE OT HER MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM VIZ. TOTALING MISTAKES IN ASCERTA INING THE PHYSICAL STOCK, STOCK OF ONE PERSON TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF OT HER PERSON AND VICE VERSA, WRONG INCLUSION OF STOCK OF M/S.HEENA F ABRICS ETC. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BEFORE HIM RELA TING TO THE FACTS THAT THE SURVEY PARTY HAD WORKED OUT THE EXCESS STO CK SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH BHANWARLAL JAIN W ITHOUT SPECIFICALLY EXAMINING THE APPELLANT. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE IS SUE REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF M/S.HEENA FABRICS TAKEN IN ADDITION OF RS .2,44,933/- WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORD ER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS, AFTER ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.20/AHD/2011& OTHERS ( SMT. PATASI DEVI BHANWARLAL JAIN VS. ITO) & OTHER -11- ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 20. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.3495/AHD/2010 OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CO NO.20/AHD/2011 OF THE ASSESSEE SMT.PATASIDEVI B HANWARLAL JAIN IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NOS.160/AHD/2011, 161 /AHD/2011 AND 163/AHD/2011 TO 164/AHD/2011 OF THE ASSESSEES ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.159/AHD/2011 & 162/AHD/2011 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD