The DCIT, Circle-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. Smt. Jayaben Dayalal Patel, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 780/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 78024914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG DR EAS
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL CA S M
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 131

Judgement Text

M O , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU N AL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA, AM IT A NO . 780 / RJT/20 10 E / ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 0 6 - 0 7 DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, RAJKOT ( / APPELLANT) VS. SMT. JAYABEN DAYALAL PATEL, C/O. M/S PATEL SOAP FACTORY, KUVADVA ROAD, RAJKOT PAN: ACNPP 0519 J C / RESPONDENT 6 S / REVENUE BY SHRI ANKUR GARG , DR EAS / ASSESSEE BY SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, CA S M /DATE OF HEARING 28.05.2013 S M / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 .05.2013 / ORDER . . [ , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 . 12 .20 09 OF LD CIT (A) - III, RA JKOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 . 2 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. SHE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF L.G. PRODUCTS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S.KIRAN TELEVISION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, SHE FI LED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23,46,830/ - . THIS RETURN WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH AUDIT REPORT IN F ORM NO.3CB & 3CD OF THE ACT ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS P ROFIT OF RS.69,67,426/ - ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.6,07,97,594/ - WHICH IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE COMES TO RS.8.49% AS AGAINST THE GROSS PROFIT OF RS.23,90,430/ - DISCLOSED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 4.19%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3) ON 31.12.2008 , WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.63,82,210/ - ON ACCOUNT OF E XCESS STOCK SHOWN IN THE S TOCK S TATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.9 ,01,816/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF UN ACCOUNTED SALES DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF NEGATIVE BALANCE OF THE STOCK IN COMPARISON TO THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. ITA NO. 780/RJT/2010 2 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER - BOOK, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, INVENTORY OF STOCK AND CONFIRMATIO NS OF VARIOUS PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE. THE MAIN CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) IS THAT THERE IS NO EXCESS STOCK AND STOCK STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE BANK IS BASED ON FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS/PLEAS: - (I) IT IS ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. (II) IT IS CONTENDED THAT ONLY BRANDED ITEMS ARE SOLD OF MULTI - NATIONAL COMPANIES, I.E. SONY, LG ETC. AND THESE ARE EX CISABLE GOODS AND CANNOT BE PURCHASED WITHOUT A VALID PURCHASE BILL. (III) THE APPELLANT IS MAINTAINING ITEM - WISE/PRODUCT - WISE DAY TO DAY QUANTITATIVE ACCOUNTS OF PURCHASES AND SALES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE A.O. (IV) FURTHER, IT IS CONTENDED T HAT THE STOCK STATEMENT TO THE BANK WAS GIVEN FOR LOAN PURPOSE ONLY, AND HIGH STOCK WAS SHOWN FOR HYPOTHECATION FACILITY, AND THERE WAS NO SUCH PHYSICAL STOCK AVAILABLE, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ALSO, NO EXCESS STOCK WAS PHYSICALLY FOUND AND THE STOCK FOUND TALLIES WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (V) IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE YEAR END AS ON 31.03.2006 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O., AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED, THOUGH A LIST OF CLOSING STOCK INV ENTORY WAS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. (VI) AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ON 31.10.2005, NO EXCESS STOCK, OR SHORT STOCK WAS FOUND COMPARED TO THE PHYSICAL STOCK AS ON ABOVE DATE, AND AS SUCH, THERE IS NO DISC REPANCY. (VII) THE STOCK STATEMENT TO THE BANK WAS GIVEN BY SIGNING TO COMPLETE THE FORMALITIES ONLY. BANK WAS NOT KEEN TO VERIFY THE STOCK, AS PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN AS ENOUGH SECURITY. (VIII) THE STOCK WAS GIVEN TO THE BANK FOR HYPOTHECATION AND THE SAME WAS NOT IN CUSTODY, OR POSSESSION OF THE BANK, AND NO VERIFICATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE BANK, HENCE, CANNOT BE RELIED AS SHOWING CORRECT STOCK. (IX) STOCK FIGURES GIVEN TO THE BANK ARE CONTENDED TO BE NOT CONCLUS IVE EVIDENCES FOR MAKING AN ADDITION. STOCK STATEMENT WAS ON PAPER AND GIVEN TO THE BANK FOR OBTAINING LOAN ONLY, AND BANKER HAS NOT, AT ANY TIME, VERIFIED THE STOCK. (X) IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT FIGURES GIVEN TO SALES - TAX AND COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT TALL Y WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (XI) FURTHER, THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS - MODERN FARM SERVICES VS. ITO (1986) 25 TAXMAN 241 (ITAT, MAG.) CIT VS. PREM SINGH & CO. (1987) 163 ITR 434 (DEL.) CIT VS. RELAXO FOOTWEAR (2003) 259 ITR 744 (RAJ. ) ITA NO. 780/RJT/2010 3 (XII) BY A REPLY DATED 4 - 11 - 2009, THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED CONFIRMATIONS AND COPY OF ACCOUNT OF MAIN SUPPLIERS, I.E. LG INDIA LTD., & CONTENDED THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM MAIN SUPPLIERS TALLY WITH THE PURCHASES SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (XIII) BY A REPLY DTD. 16 - 11 - 2009, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTED OUT THAT SALES HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED, OR PURCHASES HAVE BEEN INFLATED. ALL THE PURCHASES ARE FROM ESTABLISHED COMPANIES AND EXCISABLE, AND THAT ALL THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH PAKKA BILLS. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXCESS STOCK OF RS.63,82,210/ - AND UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.9,01,816/ - FOR SHORT STOCK BE DELETED. APART FROM THIS, BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A), RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE STATEMENT OF BANK MANAGER OF CO - OPERATIVE BANK OF RAJKOT LTD. , WHICH SHOWS THAT THE BANK WAS NOT MUCH KEEN IN GOING THROUGH THE STOCK STATEMENT. FURTHER , AS THE BANK HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY PHYSICAL VERIFI CATION, THE RELIABILITY CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE STOCK STATEMENT. 4 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 3.4 & 3 .5 WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 3.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/DETAILS/SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS A FACT THAT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, I.E. 2 - 12 - 2005, NO DISCREPANCY IN STOCK WAS FOUND. THE APPELLANT MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.19,74,500/ - FOR THE SALES RETURN, WHICH HE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN AT THAT TIME. THIS DISCLOSURE WAS HONOURED BY THE APPELLANT BY DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.19,17,500/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. APPARENTLY, THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN DISCLOSURE OF RS.3,500/ - . NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE APPELLANT FOR SHOWING LESS DISCLOSURE OF RS.3,500/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS SUCH , THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,500/ - IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MAINLY RELIED ON THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK, WHICH SHOWED THE POSITION AS ON 31 - 10 - 205. THE EXISTENCE OF THAT MUCH STOCK IS VERY DOUBTFUL, BECAUSE ONLY AFTER ONE MONTH, A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CARRIED OUT ON 2 - 12 - 2005, WHEN NO DISCREPANCY IN STOCK WAS DETECTED. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO SOLD THE SO - CALLED EXCESS STOCK WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO VERY MUCH ON RECORD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS, OR APPLIED PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. ALL THE FIGU RES OF PURCHASES, SALES, AND CLOSING STOCK HAVE BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE QUANTITATIVE TALLY MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO SALES OUT OF BOOKS, OR SUPPRESSION OF SALES, OR INFLATION OF EXP ENSES HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PURCHASES HAD BEEN FOUND CONFIRMED BY THE SUPPLIERS, INCLUDING MAIN SUPPLIER LG INDIA LTD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE CORRECT AND HELD TO BE RELIABLE AND THEY S HOW THE CORRECT AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ITA NO. 780/RJT/2010 4 APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS HEAVY RELIANCE ON BANK STATEMENT IS NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY OTHER FACT, EXCEPT HIS OWN OPINION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PUT ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF HER CLAIM THAT BANK STOCK STATEMENT IS NOT RELIABLE AND CANNOT BE MADE A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. AS FAR AS THE RELIABILITY OF STOCK STATEMENT TO BANK IS CONCERNED, IT IS FOUND THAT THE STOCK WAS GIVEN FOR HYPOTHECATION AND STOC K WAS NEVER IN CUSTODY, OR IN PASSION OF THE BANK, AND NO VERIFICATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE BANKER, AND THE ABOVE FACT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHRI ATUL FICHADIYA, MANAGER OF THE BANK, IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 16.12.2005 ALSO. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE HOUSE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN WITH ENOUGH SECURITY, AND THEREFORE, THE BANK WAS NOT KEEN TO VERIFY THE STOCK, HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE BANK MANAGER FROM ATUL FICHADIYA IN HIS STATEMENT DTD. 16.12.2005. FURTHER, I T IS FOUND THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI STUL FICHADIYA TAKEN U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 16.12.2005 WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE SAME SUPPORTED THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF SHRI ATUL FICHADIYA IS IMPORTANT, AS IN AL L THE QUESTIONS RAISED, HE HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC REPLIES. THE CRUX OF WHICH IS AS UNDER IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.2 ONWARDS, SHRI FICHADIYA STATED THAT LOAN TO KIRAN ELECTRONICS, THE PROPRIETARY FIRM OF THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN ON 24.07.2003 AGAINST CASH - C REDIT LIMIT OF RS.1 CRORE. THE SECURITY FOR ABOVE CASH - CREDIT LIMIT WAS STOCK STATEMENT AND DEBTORS OF THE FIRM AND ALSO THE MORTGAGE OF PROPERTY OF SHRI DAYABHAI TEJABHAI PATEL, HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT, VALUED AT RS.1,40,57,000/ - . SHRI FICHADIYA ALSO F ILED COPIES OF STOCK STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 1 - 4 - 2005 TO 31 - 10 - 2005 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THE STOCK STATEMENTS FROM APRIL, 2005 TO OCTOBER, 2005 AND STATED THAT NO PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE STOCK WAS DONE TILL DATE. HE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT ONLY ONCE IN A YEAR, PHYSICAL VERIFICATION IS CARRIED OUT BY THE BANK, AND, IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE LAST INSPECTION WAS DONE IN MARCH, 2005. A COPY OF THE LAST INSPECTION REPORT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS AL SO CLARIFIED BY SHRI FICHADIYA THAT THE LAST INSPECTION DTD 1 - 3 - 2005 WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF STOCK STATEMENT ONLY AND NO PHYSICAL VISIT OF THE GODOWN WAS MADE, OR PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF STOCK WA S TAKEN. IT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED BY HIM THAT FOR BANK, THE M ORTGAGED PROPERTY WAS IMPORTANT AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE VALUE OF THE SAME CASH - CREDIT LIMIT WAS GIVEN. FOR BANK, IMPORTANCE OF STOCK WAS LESS, AS THE SAME WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE BANK. FINALLY, HE EXPLAINED AND CLARIFIED THAT NO PHYSICAL VERIFICATIO N WAS CARRIED OUT, BECAUSE OF WORKLOAD ETC., AND BASICALLY, THE INSPECTION REPORT IS PREPARED KEEPING IN VIEW THE VALUE OF PROPERTY MORTGAGED. 3.5 FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY SHRI ATUL FICHADIYA, MANAGER OF THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK OF RAJKOT LTD., IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE STOCK WAS NEVER CARRIED OUT, AND AS SUCH, THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE BANK STATEMENT DTD. 31.10.2005 COULD NOT BE HELD AS RELIABLE. IN CASE OF HYPOTHECATION ACCOUNT, THE STOCK WAS NEVER PUT UNDER POSSESSION/CONTROL OF BANKING AUTHORITIES. IT IS ONLY IN CASE OF PLEDGE ACCOUNT THE STOCK IS PUT UNDER LOCK AND KEY WITH THE BANKER , AND WHICH ARE TAKEN IN CUSTODY BY THE BANKER ONLY AFTER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF PLEDGE ACCOUN T. NO PHYSICAL VERIFICATION WAS DONE, AS STATED BY THE MANAGER SHRI ATUL FICHADIYA, AND HENCE, IT IS HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT DTD. 31.10.2005. THE STOCK POSITION IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT AFTER ONE MON TH, WHEN A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON 2.12.2005, NO DIFFERENCE WAS PHYSICALLY FOUND IN STOCK. APPARENTLY, WITHIN ONE MONTH, APPELLANT CANNOT SELL SUCH HUGE STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT FOUND ANY INCIDENT OF SALE OUT OF THE BOOKS , OR SUPPRESSION OF SALES. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL ABOVE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AND CASE - LAWS ITA NO. 780/RJT/2010 5 RELIED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAS INDUSTRIES (2008) 303 ITR 199 (ALL), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STOCK VALUE SHO WN IN THE ACCOUNTS AND VALUE DISCLOSED TO BANK, NEITHER BANK NOR ASSESSING OFFICER PHYSICALLY VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED STOCK, THEREFORE ADDITION HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXCE SS STOCK OF RS.63,82,210/ - AND ALSO SHORT STOCK OF RS.9,01,816/ - TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED SALES ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, AND THE SAME DESERVED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.63,82,210/ - & RS.9,01,816/ - ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. THE SE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) - III, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.63,82,210/ - . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) - III, RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.9,01,816/ - 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - III, RAJKOT MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 6 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US , ON BEHALF OF REVENUE SHRI ANKUR GARG APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE REASONING GIVEN IN THE AS S ESSMENT ORDE R AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FOR WHICH ADDITION OF RS.63,82,210/ - WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APART FROM THIS, HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT, ON THE BASIS OF NEGATIVE BALANCE OF THE STOCK IN COMPARISON TO THE STOCK STA TEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE ADDITION OF RS.9,01,816/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE STOCK U/S 69C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING BOTH THE ADDITIONS. AS AGAINST THIS, SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF GOODS OF THE REPUTED COMPANY, SUCH AS L.G. AND STOCK S SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED. THE STOCK REGISTER WAS ALSO MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WAS SIMPLY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF CASH - CREDIT LIMIT AND M ORE SECURITY IN THE FORM OF HOUSE PROPERTIES WERE MORTGAGED; THEREFORE BANK WAS NOT MUCH KEEN IN GOING THROUGH THE STOCK ITA NO. 780/RJT/2010 6 STATEMENT. HE ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD CIT(A) IN DELETING BOTH THE ADDITIONS BE UPHELD. 7 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE DULY BEEN AUDITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE IS TRADING IN ELECTRONIC ITEMS OF LG PRODUCTS. PRIMA - FACIE IT APPEARS THAT THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK , WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 02.12.2005 , WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THIS IS ALSO S UPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT OF BANK MANAGER OF CO - OPERATIVE BANK OF RAJKOT LTD. LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE COGENT REASON FOR DELETING BOTH THE ADDITIONS. WE ARE THERE FORE , INCLINED TO UPH E LD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/ - SD/ - ( D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) (T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER E 6 / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 30 . 05 .2013 . /RAJKOT BT T JO O / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT - DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, RAJKOT 2 . C / RESPONDENT - SMT. JAYABEN DAYALAL PATEL, C/O. M/S PATEL SOAP FACTORY, KUVADVA ROAD, RAJKOT 3 . O T / CONCERNED CIT - II, RAJKOT 4 . T - / CIT (A) - III , RAJKOT 5 . EEO , M O , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT