Shri Babubhai Laljibhai Patel, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(1), Surat

ITA 3776/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9092 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SMT SHALINI VERM A
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWIN PAREKH
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : C BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HON' BLE SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, A.M. ) I.T.A. NO. 3776/AHD./2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 SHRI BABUBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL, SURAT -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), SURAT (PAN : ADSPP 6079 K) (APPELLANT) (RESP ONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWIN PAREKH RESPONDENT BY : DR. (SMT.) SHALINI VERM A, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 10.10.2008 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, SURAT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG NIL INCOME AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 31.12.2007, WHEREIN HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/- AS UN DER :- THE VALUE OF SALE OF EXCESS STOCK OF YARN : 2823.85 X 76.60 RS.2,16,307/- THE VALUE OF SALE OF EXCESS STOCK OF CLOTH : 934 X 17.49 RS. 16,335/- TOTAL RS.2,32,642/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM THE VARACHHA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. (VCBL) AGAINST HYPOT HECATION OF STOCK. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INFORMATION WAS CALLED FROM THE SAID BANK. THE BANK FURNISHED COPIES OF PERIODICAL STOCK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BAN K BY THE ASSESSEE. ON COMPARISON OF THE SAME, THE A.O. FOUND THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE QUAN TITY OF STOCK OF YARN AS WELL AS CLOTH DISCLOSED TO THE BANK. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/-. 2 ITA NO. 3776-AHD-2008 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADDITION RELYING ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIR MED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS), THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ALTERNATIVE GROUND CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD HAVE ADDED ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AS AGAINST THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDINGS CONSI DERED BY HIM. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ALL THE PURCHASES WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ADDED ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AS AGAINST ENTIR E SALES PROCEEDS CONSIDERED BY HIM. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE STOCK AS PER BANK STATEMENT IN OCTOBER 2004 AND DEC EMBER 2004 WERE HIGHER THAN THE ONE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE REFORE IN CONSIDERING THE EXCESS STOCK HAVING BEEN SOLD OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS THE AO ADDED THE SUCH DIFFERENCE BASED ON SAFE PRICE AS INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO THE ADDITION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME IN HIS OWN CASE FOR A,Y, 2004-05 AND SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE FA CTS AND LAW INVOLVED IN FINE WITH MY EARLIER ORDER THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO REJE CTED. AND AS SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. AS REGARD ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE ME THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ADDED ONLY GROSS PROFIT MARGIN AS AGAINST ENTIRE SALES PROCEEDS CONSIDERED BY HIM. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ALL THE P URCHASES WERE RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE AO SHOULD HAVE ADDED ONLY GRO SS PROFIT MARGIN AS INCOME AS AGAINST SALE PROCEEDS CONSIDERED BY HIM. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN ITS CASE, SINCE THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK HA S NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE AO AND SINCE THE PURCHASES WERE ALREADY ALLOWED AS DED UCTION IN FULL THE AO WAS RIGHT IN TAKING THE ENTIRE SALES PRICE AS INCOME AS AGAINST ONLY MARGIN AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND HENCE THE A0 R S ACTION IN THIS REGARD DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERF ERENCE AND HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO RAISED WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO THE FIRST GROUND WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS E RRED IN NOT ALLOWING REDUCTION FOR CLOTH ON MACHINE AT 10800 MTS. AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,06,812/-, 3 ITA NO. 3776-AHD-2008 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT NORMALLY THE ENTIR E PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING GREY CLOTH TAKES THREE DAYS AND THAT DURING SUCH PERIOD THE GREY CLOTH REMAINS ON MACHINES WHICH WORKS OUT TO 10800 MTS AND THEREFORE WHILE CONSIDERING THE ADDITION SO MADE THE AO SHOULD HAVE REDUCED SUCH SEMI FINISHED GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS.206812/- WHILE MAKING THE ADD ITION OF RS.2,32642/- AND ONLY NET FIGURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN ITS CASE SINCE THE AO HAS WHILE TAKING THE FIGURES OF BANK STATEMENT AND BOOK RESULT HAVE CONSIDERED THE TOTAL STOCK AND IF THE APPELLANT'S PLEA OF THIS NATURE IS ADMITTED THEN FIRST AND FOREMOST THE AO SHOULD H AVE FURTHER ENHANCED SUCH STOCK BY RS,2,06,812/- AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT AND THEREFORE WHEN SUCH ADDITION IS NOT MADE BY THE AO THE SAME COULD NOT B E ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK SALES AND HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO NOT TENABLE AND HENCE REJECTED. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO NON CONSIDERAT ION OF ALLOWING SET OFF OF CLOTH AGAINST YARN SINCE CLOTH IS MANUFACTURED O UT OF YARN OF OCTOBER 2004, WHICH IS HIGHER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS,232642 SHOULD BE DELETED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER WH ERE THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE EXCESS STOCK OF CLOTHS IN STATEMENT GIVE TO BANK HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT IN THE SAME MONTH THE STOCK OF YARN WAS HIGHER IN BOOKS AS AGAINST STOCK SHOWN TO THE BANK IN SUCH STATEMENT MEANING T HEREBY THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN FIGURES OF MANUFACTURED CLOTHS ANTEDATED OUT OF SUCH YARN WHICH WAS IN EXCESS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS AGAINST DANK STATEME NT. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE ME HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SU CH DETAILS OF STOCK BEFORE ME AND THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS I AM UNABLE TO ACCEDE TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO R EJECTED FOR WANT OF DETAILS. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO ALLOWANCE OF PREVI OUS YEAR ADDITION IN CLOSING STOCK AS DEDUCTION IN THE CURRENT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F EXCESS STOCK OF MATERIAL SHOWN TO THE BANK AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME SINCE THE A DDITION WAS MADE TO THE CLOSING STOCK THE SAME BECOMES OPENING STOCK OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS IN HIS SUPPORT WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BY ME. I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE APP ELLANT IN THIS REGARD SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS CONSIDERED ONLY STOCK RECOR DS OF CURRENT YEAR OF BANK RECORDS AND BOOKS RESULT AND THEREFORE IF THE CLOSI NG STOCK IS FURTHER INCREASED IN OPENING STOCK THE SAME AMOUNT WOULD REMAIN AS STOCK OR WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD SINCE THE BOOK RESULTS DID NOT CONSIDERED SUCH STOCK AND THEREFORE ON THIS GROUND ALSO THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPELLANT'S CA SE SINCE ADDITION OF OPENING STOCK WOULD REMAIN AS CLOSING STOCK AND EVENTUALLY THERE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ANY EFFECT ON PROFIT OF THE CURRENT YEAR AND AS SUCH THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL ALSO DOES NOT FIND 4 ITA NO. 3776-AHD-2008 FAVOUR AND HENCE REJECTED. THE PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIE D UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE THUS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND ARE OF NO AVAIL. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :-. (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A.) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK OF GREY CLOTH AS PER STOCK STATEMENT GIVEN TO BANK AND AS P ER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF HYPOTHECATION, IN SURANCE AND GENERAL STATEMENT PREPARED BY APPELLANT. THE ADDITION OF RS .2,32,642/- SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE DELETED. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A.) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF STOCK AS ENTIRE SALES INSTEAD OF GROSS PROFIT ON SALES. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND IN ALTERNATIVE TO GROUND NO. 1, THE LEARNED CIT(A.) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWIN G SET OFF OF CLOTH AGAINST YARN SINCE CLOTH IS MANUFACTURED OUT OF YARN OF OCT . 2004 WHICH IS HIGHER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/- SH OULD BE DELETED. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, SHRI ASHWIN PA REKH, LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE IS A DIFFERENC E IN QUANTITY BUT THE TOTAL QUANTITY AVAILABLE OF CLOTH AND YARN IS NOT MORE THAN THE AVAILABLE STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SET OFF OF CLOTH AGAINST YARN SINCE CLOTH IS MANUFACTURED OUT OF YAR N OF OCTOBER, 2004, WHICH IS HIGHER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT STOCK IS ON LY HYPOTHECATED AND NOT PLEDGED IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK, HIGHER QUANTITY IS SHO WN TO CLAIM HIGHER LIMIT OF LOANS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTIN G TO RS.2,32,642/- BE DELETED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, DR. SHALINI VERMA, LD. SR. D. R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). SHE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 145(3) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SHE CONTENDED THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3). SHE ALS O POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED THE INFORMATION FROM THE BANK, MADE COMPARIS ON AND FOUND SERIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN 5 ITA NO. 3776-AHD-2008 QUANTITY. SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, A B ENCH, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS.- VIKAS AGENCY REPORTED IN [2003] 85 ITD 536 (AHD.) F OR THE PROPOSITION THAT ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE MADE IN RES PECT OF EXCESS STOCK HYPOTHECATED WITH THE BANK. SHE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE BOTH THE DEP ARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFER ENCE IN QUANTITY, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE CONF IRMED. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY OF YARN IN STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK THAN ACTUALLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SIMILARLY, IN CASE OF CLOTH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF 934 METERS. THE PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE STOCK SHOWN TO THE BANK IS ON ESTIMATE BASIS, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE CERTI FICATE ISSUED TO THE BANK CLEARLY INDICATES THAT GOODS WERE INSURED AND THESE ARE AS PER BOOKS OF AC COUNTS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PEAK QUANTITY OF EXCESS STOCK IN THE CASE OF YARN FOUND IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2004. S IMILARLY, EXCESS STOCK OF CLOTH WAS FOUND IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2004. THE VALUE OF SALE OF S UCH QUANTITY OF YARN AS WELL AS CLOTH IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND O N THIS BASIS, HE WORKED OUT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/-. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S. MURUGAPPA CHETTIAR VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 175 ITR 245, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCOUNTED FIGURES IN T HE STOCK BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FURNISHED TWO CONTRADICTORY FIGURES. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL TO CORROBORATE BOOK FIGURES AS CORRECT FIGURE, THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTIN G THE BOOK RESULTS WAS JUSTIFIED. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF KAILA SWEE T M. SUPPLIER VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 163 CTR 302 HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE INFLATED VALUE OF STOCK WAS BASED ON THE LIST OF ITEMS FURNISHED ON ESTIMATED BASIS, THE BUR DEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT REAL. IN THAT CASE, THE HON'BLE CO URT WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN CENTURY FORM REPORTED IN 210 ITR 625, AND SWADESHI COTTON M ILLS REPORTED IN 180 ITR 651, HELD THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK AND THAT FOUND IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS COULD VALIDLY BE BROUGHT TO TA X IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT SUCH AN 6 ITA NO. 3776-AHD-2008 ADDITION. IN FACT IN THE CASE OF CENTURY FORMS PVT. LTD. REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE BURDEN WAS S QUARELY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT TENOR WAS NOT REAL AS CONTAINED IN THE STO CK STATEMENT FILED BEFORE THE BANK. 7.1. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C OIMBATORE SPINNING AND WEAVING CO. LTD. VS.- CIT REPORTED IN 95 ITR 375 (MAD.) HELD T HAT IN THAT CASE, IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT STOCKS WERE INFLATED IN THE STATEMENT S GIVEN TO THE BANK FOR OBTAINING OVERDRAFT AND LOAN FACILITIES. IT IS WORTH REPRODUCING THE OBSERV ATIONS OF THE HON'BLE COURT MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF FURNISHING INFLATED STOCK TO SECURE OVERDRAFT FA CILITY :- THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUB MITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE BUSINESS HOUSES DECLARING LARGER STOCKS TO THE BANKS PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING HIGHER LOANS OR OVERDRAFT FACILITIES. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT ANY SUCH PRACTICE IS SHOWN TO EXIST OR THAT IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE COMMERC IAL CIRCLES OR BY COURTS. EVEN ASSUMING THAT SUCH PRACTICE EXISTS THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH SUB-STANDARD MORALITY ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO GO BACK ON THEIR OWN SWORN STATEMENTS GIVEN TO T HE BANKS AS TO THE STOCKS HELD AND HYPOTHECATED BY THEM TO THE BANKS. IN A CASE LI KE THIS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS CONFRONTED WITH HIS OWN SWORN STATEMENTS WHICH SHOW A DIFFERENT STATE OF AFFAIRS THAN THE ONE SHOWN IN HIS OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HE AVY BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONE G IVE THE CORRECT PICTURE, AND THE SWORN STATEMENTS GIVEN TO THE BANKS WERE MOTIVATED . 7.2. ITAT, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS.- VIKAS AGENCY REPORTED IN [2003] 85 ITD 536 (AHD.) HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R HAVING FOUND DISCREPANCIES IN STOCKS AS HYPOTHECATED TO BANK FOR AVAILING OVERDRAFT FACILIT IES AND STOCK AS REFLECTED IN INVENTORY FILED DURING ASSESSMENT, ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THIS DECIS ION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THA T LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY CORRECT IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,32,642/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERF ERE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24.12.20 10 SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24 / 12 / 2010 7 ITA NO. 3776-AHD-2008 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A.) CONCERNED, (4) CIT CONCERNED, (5) D.R. , ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGIS TRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.