The ITO, Ward-2(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Nangalia Impex, Surat

ITA 745/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67936 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, J.M. & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 745/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SURAT V/S M/S. NANGALIA IMPEX, 2 ND FLOOR, CORPORATE BUILDING, BOMBAY MARKET, UMARWADA, SURAT-395010 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACFN0533F APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH SHAH ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 13-11-201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -11-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.11.2012 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADI NG AND EXPORTING OF ART SILK FABRICS. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2004-05 ON 31.12.2004 SHOWING TOTAL LOSS OF RS 16,760/-. THE CASE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 2 THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VID E ORDER DATED 23.11.2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S 57,85,560/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 16.11.2012 ALLOWED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,50,000/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF THE BANK. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,25,000/- MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT ON THE SUPPRESSED SALES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SALE WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EVEN AFTER THE STO CK HAS BEEN SOLD OUT. SINCE GROUND NO 1 & 2 ARE INTERCONNECTE D BOTH ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOT ICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED WORKING CAPITAL ASSISTANCE AGAINST HYPO THECATION OF STOCK FROM BANK. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMO UNT OF LOAN OF BANK AS ON 1.4.2003 AS PER THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS 1,47,88,912/- BUT HOWEVER THE STOCK AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT TO THE EXTENT OF THE CREDIT FACILITY. FROM THE STOCK STATEMENT AS ON 30. 11.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK ON 11.12.2003, HE NOTICED THAT THE STOCK WAS SHOWN TO THE EXTENT OF RS 66,69,192/-. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME AND EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY. THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. HE NOTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE STOCK OF GREY TO THE EXTENT OF 250000 MTR S VALUED AT RS 52,50,000/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE THEREFORE C ONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE STOCK OUT OF ITS UNDISCLOSED SOUR CE OF INCOME AND ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 3 THEREFORE CONSIDERED IT TO BE INVESTMENT FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT SINCE THE AFORESAID STOCK WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CLOSING ST OCK OR THE SALES, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOLD THE STOCK AND NOT RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE PR OFIT FROM SUCH SALES AT 10% AND MADE ADDITION OF RS 5,25,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF PROFIT ON SUPPRESSION OF SALES. AGGREIVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION B Y HOLDING AS UNDER: 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS SHOWN GREY STOCK OF RS. 52,50,000/- OF 2,50,000 METERS IN STOCK STATEME NT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 2003 WHEREAS NO SUCH STOCK WAS SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GREY TO THE EXTENT OF 13,837 METRES IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2003 SHOWED GREY STOCK OF 2,63,837.75 METERS (2,50,000 + 13837 METRE PURCH ASED DURING THE MONTH). AS APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN 2,50,000 METERS OF GREY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT SHOWN IN THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, SAME WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND ADDITION O F RS. 52,50,000 WAS MADE. FURTHER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT AS THI S STOCK OF GREY IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE CLOSING STOCK OR SALES MADE BY APPELLANT, FURTH ER ADDITION OF RS. 5,25,000/- BEING 10% PROFIT ON THIS UNACCOUNTED SALE WAS ESTIMATED. THUS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 57,75,000/- FOR UNACCOUNTED TRANSAC TIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GREY. ON THE OTHER HAND, APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT APPELLANT HAS STOCK OF TWO TYPES OF FABRICS BEING GREY CLOTHS AND PROCESSED CLOTH AND S TOCK LYING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR BOTH THE STOCKS WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN STOCK MENT IONED IN THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO BANK WHICH IS ALSO SUMMARISED IN PARA - 8 OF APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION HENCE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JU STIFIED. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT IN THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK, APPELLAN T HAS WRONGLY STATED THE QUANTITY OF GREY FABRICS ON HIGHER SIDE THAN PROCESSED FABRI CS WHICH WAS ONLY AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT AS IT HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCK MAINTAINED BY IT AND ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED BY INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OF FICER IS UNCALLED FOR. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRE DETAILS SUBMITTE D BY APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT STOCK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT TO THE BANK FOR THE MONTH JUNE 2003 TO NOVEMBER, 2003 SHOW THE STOCK OF GREY AND PROCESSED CLOTH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED THE QUANTITY OF GREY SHOWN IN THE MONT H OF JUNE 2003 TO OCTOBER 2003 AND COMPARED THE SAME WITH BOOK STOCK DURING THE RE LEVANT PERIOD AND OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS SHOWN HIGHER QUANTITY OF GREY IN STOC K STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, WHICH IS NOTHING BUT UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED CREDIT FACILITY FROM THE BANK AND STOCK IS ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 4 HYPOTHECATED WITH THE BANK AND NOT PLEDGED WITH THE BANK AND IT IS A MATTER OF PRACTICE OF BUSINESSMEN TO SHOWN HIGHER STOCK TO BA NK TO AVAIL OF BANK LOANS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED VALUE AND QUANTITY OF STOCK OF GREY SUBMITTED TO BANK WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NOT MAD E ANY COMPARISON OF PROCESSED CLOTH, QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF SUCH STOCK WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED STOCK OF GREY OF RS. 52,50,000 SUBMITTED TO BANK FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2003 WITH NIL STOCK SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOU NT BUT HAS NOT COMPARED PROCESSED CLOTH SHOWN AT RS. 40,96,205 IN BANK STAT EMENT WITH BOOK STOCK OF RS. 91,76,458. THE AGGREGATE STOCK SUBMITTED TO THE BAN K FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2003 WAS FOR RS. 93.46 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 91.76 LACS IN BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2003 AGGREGATE STOCK SUBMITTED TO BANK WAS RS. 72.4 8 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 91.76 LACS SHOWN IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EVEN SIMILAR IS THE C ASE FOR AUGUST 2003 TO NOVEMBER 2003. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN HIGHER BOOK STOCK IN ALL THE MONTHS IN COMPARISON WITH STOCK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. WHILE MAKING IMPUGNED ADDITION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPARED ONLY GREY STOCK WITH OUT MAKING ANY COMPARISON OF PROCESSED STOCK WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AO CANN OT ADOPT OR CONSIDER THE ISSUE WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF IT WITHOUT IGNORING THE OTHE R PART WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, ON OVERALL COMPARISON OF STOCK SUBMITTED TO BANK APPELLANT HAS SHOWN HIGHER BOOK STOCK HENCE ADDITIO N MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING PARTIAL COMPARISON OF GREY CLOTH IS NOT JUST IFIED. EVEN THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE PROCESSED STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT F OR RS. 91.76 LACS IN THE MONTH OF JUNE AND JULY 2003, RS. 97.74 LACS IN AUGUST 2003 A ND RS. 91.76 LACS IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2003 BUT HAS SHOWN SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER STOCK IN STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WHICH SUGGESTS THAT STOCK STA TEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK IS INCORRECT, AS NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD SUBMIT L OWER STOCK TO BANK AS IT WILL ULTIMATELY AFFECT CREDIT LIMIT OF LOAN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS APPELLA NT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS REGARDING OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES MADE BY APPELLAN T, SALES MADE BY IT, ETC., WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY DISCR EPANCY HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT B ROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE WHICH CAN PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAS PURCHAS ED GREY CLOTH OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OR ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT IN POSSESSION OF HI GHER QUANTITY OF STOCK. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT BANK HAS PHY SICALLY VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED THE STOCK AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE WITH STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT TO THE BANK HENCE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS PURELY ON PARTIAL COMP ARISON OF GREY STOCK IGNORING PROCESSED STOCK AVAILABLE WITH APPELLANT. IN NUTSHE LL, APPELLANT HAS SHOWN HIGHER BOOK STOCK OF GREY CLOTH AND PROCESSED STOCK IN COM PARISON WITH STOCK OF SUCH TWO ITEMS SUBMITTED TO BANK HENCE ADDITION MADE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS UNJUSTIFIED AS HE HAS COMPARED ONLY GREY STOCK AND IGNORING THE PROCE SSED STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLO WANCE RELIED UPON DECISION OF S. MURUGAPPA CHETTIYAR VS CIT 174 ITR 245 AND 201 ITR 192 IN PARA 4.6 OF THE ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT COURTS HAVE HELD THAT WHEN DIFFER ENT STOCK IS SUBMITTED TO TWO AUTHORIZES, HIGHER OF THE TWO IS REQUIRED TO BE ADO PTED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IF STOCK OF BOTH GREY FABRIC AND PROC ESSED FABRIC IS COMPARED WITH STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK APPELLANT HAS SHOWN HI GHER BOOK STOCK IN COMPARISON WITH STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK HENCE DECISI ONS RELIED UPON CANNOT BE APPLIED ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 5 IN PRESENT CASE AND IF IT IS APPLIED IT IS IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK IN BOOKS IS MORE THAN STOCK IN STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. THE HON. DELHI ITAT IN CASE OF CIT VS. JYOTI WOOLEN MILLS LIMITED 125 TTJ 810 HAS HELD AS UNDER: '...HELD THAT THE CREDIT FACILITY WAS EXTENDED BY T HE BANK TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE HYPOTHECATION OF STOCK AND THE VALUATION OF THE STO CK DECLARED TO THE BANK WAS HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL STOCK AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND THIS INFLATION OF THE STOCK WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN HIGHER CREDIT LI MIT FROM THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO S HOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT IN POSSESSION OF HIGHER QUANTITY OF STOCK. THEREFOR E, ON MERE COMPARISON OF THE STOCK DECLARED TO THE BANK AND THE ONE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO' FURTHER HON. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS . RELAXO FOOTWARE 123 TAXMAN 322 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 143 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 -ASSESSMEN T - ADDITION TO INCOME - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 - TRIBUNAL ON EXAMINATION O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND THAT TRUE POSITION OF STOCK WAS RIGHTLY REFLECTED IN BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK WAS DELIBERATELY INFLAT ED ONLY TO GET HIGHER LIMIT OF CREDIT FROM BANK - TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, DELETED ADDITION M ADE TO INCOME ON BASIS OF STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK - WHETHER FINDING OF TR IBUNAL WAS A FINDING OF FACT AND REQUIRED NO INTERFERENCE - HELD, YES' IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IT APPEARS THAT APPELLANT HAS MECHANICALLY REPORTED WRONG FIGURES OF GREY CLOTH AND PROCESSED STOCK WHICH WAS CERTAIN LY LESS THAN STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND SALE EITHER OF GREY CLOTH OR PROCESSED STOCK. STOCK OF GREY IN RUNNING BUSINESS CONSTANTLY CANNOT REMAIN SAME F OR FOUR MONTHS I.E JUNE 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 2003. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF APPELLANT' S CASE AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE AND UNDISPUTED FACT THAT STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCO UNT WAS MUCH MORE THAN STOCK AS PER STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO BANK. THEREFORE IT IS HE LD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED PURCHA SE OF RS 52,50,000 AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION OF RS 5,25,000 BY ESTIMATING PROFIT THEREFORE BOTH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ARE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE DR POINTED TO THE FINDINGS AND OBSER VATIONS OF AO AND THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. THE ID.A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN TWO TYPE OF FABRICS NAME LY GREY CLOTH AND PROCESSED CLOTH. IN THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED T O THE BANK, DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKE WHICH WAS UNINTENTIONAL, THE QUANT ITY OF THE STOCK WAS ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 6 INTERCHANGED AND FURTHER THE STOCK STATED TO THE BA NK WAS RS 66.69 LACS WHEREAS AS PER THE BOOKS, THE VALUE OF STOCK WAS RS 99.45 LACS AND AS SUCH THE TOTAL VALUE OF STOCK STATED TO THE BANK WA S NOT ON HIGHER THAN THE BOOK STOCK. HE ALSO POINTED TO THE MONTH WISE STOCK POSITION AS REPRODUCED BY CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE VALUE OF STOCK AS PER BOOKS WERE ON HIGHER SIDE THAT THE STO CK SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT MAINTAINS COMPLE TE QUANTITATIVE RECORD OF THE STOCK AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO AUD ITED INDEPENDENTLY. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE NO ADDITION OF ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN STOCK WAS CALLED FOR. HE THUS SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE DEALS IN GRE Y CLOTH AND PROCESSED CLOTH AND HAD OBTAINED BANK FINANCE FOR WORKING CAP ITAL BY HYPOTHECATION OF THE AFORESAID STOCK. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE A DDITION HAS NOTED THAT AO HAS COMPARED THE VALUE AND QUANTITY OF STOCK OF GREY SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WITH THAT OF BOOK STOCK BUT HAD NOT MADE C OMPARISION OF PROCESSED CLOTH, THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AGGREGATE S TOCK OF GREY CLOTH AND PROCESSED STOCK FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2003 AS PER T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS 91.76 LACS AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF STOCK OF RS 93.46 LACS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT FO R THE MONTH OF AUG TO SEPT 2003 THE STOCK SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS LOWER THAN THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS WHICH THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS INCORRECT. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE WHICH CAN PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GREY ITA NO 745/A HD/2013 . A.Y. 2004- 05 7 CLOTH OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OR ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT IN POSSESSION OF HIGHER QUANTITY OF STOCK. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HA S NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CI T(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THUS BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 -11 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD