SHANTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT V. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), SURAT

ITA 26/SRT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shanti Enterprise, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment for the year 2014-15. The primary contention was about the validity of the assessment and the additions made to the income based on the revaluation of work-in-progress (WIP) and the cost allocation to different phases of a real estate project. The AO had recalculated the unit cost of land and materials for Phase III of the Millennium Textile Project, leading to a higher declared profit. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, which was contested by Shanti Enterprise in the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision partly favored the assessee by directing a specific revaluation of the closing inventories while upholding the AO's method for determining the actual profit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473436 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: H.M. Esufall & H. M. Abdulali, 90 ITR 271 (SC), CIT vs. British Paints India Limited, 188 ITR 44 (SC), Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT, 44 ITR 529 (SC), Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs. CIT, 63 ITR 416 (SC), Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT, 953 AIR 509 (SC), CIT vs. SBJ VAN Compounders Private Limited, 37 taxmann.com 353 (Gujarat)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: HIREN R.VEPARI; ADOPTING ARBITRARY
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 145; 145(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.26/SRT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Shanti Enterprise, A-1013-14, Millenium Textile Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat – 395002. Vs. The ITO, Ward -1(1)(2), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFS5217L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Hiren R. Vepari, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘CIT(A)’] dated 30.11.2022 for assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: (I) Validity of the assessment: (1) The assessment order may be treated invalid since the Assessing Officer failed to follow directions given by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax u/s.144A. (2) In any circumstances, the authority supervising the Assessing Officer framed a view which is beneficial to the appellant should have been followed. (II) Addition based: On show cause notice as convenient to the Assessing Officer. 2 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise (1) The learned CIT(A) failed in appreciating; that the Assessing Officer issued two show cause notices that resulted in the following tabulated proposition; Show Cause Notice dated Proposal Effect on income Effect 21.12.2016 Reduce the Closing WIP shown by the assessee from Rs. 17,41,65,709 to Rs.12,97,23,599 Reduction of income (-) 4,44,42, 109 28.12.2016 Apportion cost at Rs.3,900.58 per sq. ft. by adding up cost of Phase I, Phase II and Phase III against the sale, and hence, determined profit at Rs.6,40, 05,093 in place of Rs.3,20,73,740 shown by the assessee Addition to the income 3,19,31,353 Net effect is reduction in income by Rs. (-) 1,25,10,756 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer should have either taken into account net result of both the notices while framing the assessment or ignored both the notices. Choosing what conveniences the department, has made the proceedings unfair and infirm. (2) In the circumstances, income of the appellant is required to be reduced by Rs.1,25,10,756. (III) Restatement of cost allocable to the units sold resulting in addition of Rs.3,19,31,353 to the income. (1) The learned CIT(A) while dismissing appeal, failed in understanding and appreciating the size of project in hand, by applying formula that is basic and applicable to a small sized project, confirmed a sum of Rs.3,19,31,353 which was reworked by the AO, the cost allocable out of closing work-in-progress to the units sold. (2) The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming restatement of the cost on broad and vague basis disregarding absolutely systematic and precise cost allocation basis of the appellant. (3) Without prejudice to the above, the, learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that if the Assessing Officer were to adopt a particular formula for working out cost per sq. ft. of constructed area, he ought to have applied the same formula on the closing sq. ft. remaining under closing work-in- progress of the project. 3 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise (IV) Miscellaneous: The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that assessee does not wish to press ground nos. (I) and (II), therefore, we dismiss these grounds as not pressed. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed return of income on 25.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs.2,18,34,630/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. Various notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold various shops/commercial spaces of the Phase – III of the Milennium Textile Project on Ring Road, Surat. Phase – I and Phase – II of the Project had already been completed. The assessee treated cost and accounting ratios pertaining to Phase I and Phase II as single item, while Phase III was treated on a separate footing. The books of account and gross profit rate of the assessee for the relevant year were examined i.e., sales, purchases, inventory/WIP etc. During the verification, the Assessing Officer (in shot, ‘the AO’) found that unit cost of construction for determination of profits (income) was arrived at by aggregating unit cost of land and unit cost of materials (WIP). The AO noticed that the project has been divided into two separate phases i.e., (i) Phase I & II and (ii) Phase III for the purpose of computation of unit costs and loading of costs. Excessive costs have been allocated to Phase III and profits therefrom have been suppressed. The assessee submitted written submission on 30.12.2016 which is extracted at page nos.2 to 7 of the assessment order. The 4 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise reply and submissions of the assessee were considered by the AO. The AO discussed the contention of the assessee and rebutted the same at page nos. 7 to 12 of the assessment order. Thus, the submission of the assessee was not accepted by the AO. The books of account were rejected due to certain defects i.e. (i) the unit land cost was calculated by AO @ Rs.2885.43 per sq. ft. in place of Rs.3293.86 per sq. ft. adopted by assessee and (ii) the unit valuation of WIP (closing stock) was re-calculated @ Rs.3900.58 per sq. ft. instead of Rs.4309/-. This is at para 3.1 of the assessment order. Revaluation of WIP and reduction of cost claimed by assessee is at para 3.2 of assessment order. 4.1 The AO after issuing show cause notice to the assessee and after considering its reply has rejected the book result and calculated the suppression profit vide discussion in para 3.3 and 3.4 of the assessment order. It was noticed by AO that the assessee had arbitrarily imputed loading factors to shops on various floors. The ground floor was valued at 15% premium, upper ground floor at 30% premium while the first floor was valued at 10% discount and second floor was valued at 35% discount. The AO observed that this fact was not apparent but was detected from through scrutiny. Since the shops / spaces on the ground and upper ground has more value and profits and they are sold early, the profits on sale of these shops are higher than profit on the shops on the higher floors. The assessee by adopting arbitrary load factors on costing distorted correct and true profit of the project. The AO has observed that the assessee knowingly imputed 45% more cost to ground 5 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise floor and upper ground floor in order to lower the taxable profit. He observed that the cost of construction should have been uniformed over the entire project. In view of these facts, assessee was requested as to why the books of account should not be rejected u/s 145(3) of the Act. In response, the assessee had not furnished any specific reply to counter the notice of AO. Thereafter, at para 3.4, the AO has determined the actual profit and returned profit in a tabular form wherein the actual profit was determined at Rs.6,40,05,093/- instead of declared profit of Rs.3,20,73,740/-. The suppression of profit was accordingly determined at Rs.3,19,31,353/- (Rs.6,40,05,093 – Rs. 3,20,73,740). The AO did not alter or modify the valuation of closing stock / WIP by stating at para 3.5 that similar modification in valuation of opening stock / WIP would negate any such effect making the effort revenue neutral. The AO has relied on the decision in case of H.M. Esufall & H. M. Abdulali, 90 ITR 271 (SC) to support above view. Regarding contention of the assessee that the method of valuation is same and uniform because it was followed in several preceding assessment years and the department has accepted the same, the AO observed that consistency logic is not enough to help the assessee because the accounts of assessee in its present form do not give clear and true picture of the profit. The methodology adopted by assessee only reduces income and taxable profit of the assessee. The AO relied on the decision in case of CIT vs. British Paints India Limited, 188 ITR 44 (SC) wherein it was held that it is incorrect to say that AO was bound to accept the system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the correctness of which had not been 6 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise questioned in the past. In the result, the AO added Rs.3,19,31,353/- on account of revaluation of costing and rejection of suppression of profit. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) heard the assessee but did not find any merit in the contention of the assessee. The ground of appeal and submissions of the assessee have been reproduced in the appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A) has also reproduced point-wise rebuttal made by the AO in the assessment order. At para 6.9 of the appellate order, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground relating to validity of the assessment. At para 7 to 7.2, he has discussed about the addition of Rs.3,19,31,353/- on account of restatement of cost allocable to the units sold out of closing WIP. The submission of the appellant has been reproduced at para 7.1 of the appellate order. The finding has been given at para 7.2 of the appellate order. He has observed that no additional facts were adduced by the appellant during appellate proceedings which could lead to some contrary decision. He observed that each and every issue has been taken into consideration by the AO in the assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) also found that the facts that the appellant had adopted the method for arriving at cost of construction (WIP) in respect of sold shops / non-shop space in an arbitrary manner by loading factors cannot be denied in view of the facts elaborately discussed by the AO in the assessment order. The fact that the appellant had valued the ground floor was valued at 15% premium, upper ground floor at 30% premium while first floor at 10% discount and second floor at 35% is an admitted fact and no explanation as to such arbitrary valuation for different 7 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise floors had been furnished by the appellant during the assessment or appellate proceedings. The findings of the AO that the shops on ground and upper ground floor warranted more value and profits and are generally sold at the early stage has also not been denied by the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) also did not approve the differential cost and accounting ratios relating to Phase I & Phase II as a singular phase but Phase III as a different phase. He observed that assessee was required to arrive cost on aggregate basis and not on standalone basis. He agreed that assessee has allocated excessive cost to Phase III and the profit therein has been suppressed. He also did not find any merit on the theory of consistency and rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act. He has also noted applicability of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of British Paints India Limited (supra). Accordingly, he dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed two paper books and submitted that as against assessee’s land cost per sq. ft. clearly and systematically identifiable separately for Phase I & II and Phase III, the AO averaged land cost per sq. ft. for the entire project. However, the AO has accepted construction of different Phases without any disturbance. He further submitted that the department has accepted method of valuation of inventories in various assessment years. The department rejected books u/s 145 during AYs.2005-06 and 2007-08 to 2010-11, but the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeals of assessee even though the additions were 8 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise made on different counts. The Ld. AR further submitted that on account of ratio of different built-up area, cost allocable of land would naturally be higher to Phase III as against Phase I & II. Even FSI available to both projects was different which would give higher cost per sq. ft. of land in Phase III. He also submitted that because of large size of project, ‘Belting Method’ was used where prominent inventory was given higher value for cost absorption against inventories less prominent. This is because realization per sq. ft. in front side would be higher. The AO has not dealt with such big project and hence he did not understand the applicability of belting method. He further stated that closing inventories has been accepted u/s 143(3) in the preceding assessment year 2013-14. Since the sale was made out of the opening inventories, the AO could not have made the addition. He further submitted that the department has not followed the rule of consistency. There is no rational to reabsorb cost which is already absorbed. He also submitted that rejection of the books of account by challenging the method of valuation of inventories is not sustainable. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AR submitted that if the department opts to re-determine the cost that needs to be absorbed against sales, it is to be applied to the closing inventories as well. On the whole, there is no revenue loss to the department. He further submitted that the average worked out by AO can be done only at the fag-end of the project and it is impossible to determine it from the first year. 7. On the other hand, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (Ld. CIT-DR) supported the order of the lower 9 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise authorities. He submitted that bifurcation of project into two separate parts i.e., Phase I & II as single unit and Phase III as a separate unit is erroneous since the project is one and a whole. The costs have to be arrived at on aggregate basis and not on standalone system adopted by the assessee. He further submitted that excessive costs have been allocated to Phase III and profits therefrom have been suppressed. The standalone approach for Phase I & II and Phase III has the effect of artificially enhancing unit cost of land imputed on Phase III i.e., the current portion of the project and thereby reducing due taxable profits. Since the method of valuation of WIP by assessee is imperfect and defective, book results with respect to WIP / inventory valuation have been rightly rejected by the AO. He submitted that all replies given by the assessee have been duly discussed and rebutted by the AO, which has been affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the assessee has paid negligible taxes though the impugned project is one of the largest and successful commercial textile market projects in Surat. This has been achieved by manipulation and jugglery of costs and valuations. The objective and purpose of assessment is to determine the true and correct income of the project. The appellant has adopted the method for arriving at cost of construction in respect of the premises sold in an arbitrary manner by loading factors which cannot be denied. No explanation as to such variation or arbitrary valuation of different floors have been furnished by the appellant during assessment or appellate proceedings. He further submitted that the approach taken by the assessee was wrong and erroneous since the project 10 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise was one and a whole. The project is on a single piece of land which was purchased together and all three projects were built by the same builder. Therefore, the assessee was required to arrive at the cots at an aggregate basis and not on standalone system, as has been adopted by assessee. Therefore, the AO has rightly disallowed the excessive cost of Phase III, which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Regarding the consistency logic given by assessee, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that accounts of the assessee in the present form do not give clear and true picture of the profit. He has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. British Paint India Limited (supra). He has finally submitted that the addition made by the AO, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld in entirety. 8. In the rejoinder, the Ld. AR has submitted that the argument of negligible taxes is not correct because all the years except AY.2006-07 were under scrutiny and assessment orders have been passed u/s 143(3). The additions made by the department have been deleted by the ITAT and Hon’ble High Court. Regarding arbitrary valuation, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had adopted a method which is used in respect of large project. He further submitted that there was no question of inflation of expenses. The land value was absorbed at different rate for Phase III in comparison to Phase I & II because the construction permission was different for both phases; meaning thereby that the land value was required to be unitized to the permissible construction area of Phase III and Phase I & II differently. Initially Phase I & II were different but later on they were combined based on 11 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise permission received. Hence, total land cost had to be allotted based on construction permission area. The Ld. AR submitted that Phase I & II and Phase III bearing different cost absorption for the land has all along been furnished during the last ten assessment years and were accepted by Department. Rejection u/s 145 of the Act has been overturned by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in appellant’s case for three assessment years (i.e., AY.2005-06 to 2007-08). Regarding consistency logic, the Ld. AR submitted that the same should be accepted in light of several decisions of Hon’ble Courts. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of SBJ VAN Compounders Private Limited, 37 taxmann.com 353 (Gujarat). The Ld. AR further submitted that the decision in case of British Paints India Limited (supra), relied on by the CIT-DR, is not applicable because it was on different set of facts. The Ld. AR submitted that over 94% of the project is over and cost has been absorbed at a correct and consistent rate against the sales over the last ten years and on the whole, there is no loss to revenue. Besides, the land cost absorbed against the revenue has not evidently been higher than its costs. It is only the phase-wise cost spread which is different. In view of the above facts, the Ld. AR requested to delete the addition. 9. We have heard rival submission of both the parties and perused the record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by both parties. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 have not been pressed by the Ld. AR of the assessee. Ground No.3 relates to restatement of cost allocable to the units sold resulting addition of Rs.3,19,31,353/- to the returned of income during the year under 12 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise consideration. The facts of the case has already been discussed earlier in this order and hence not narrated here to avoid repetition. There is no dispute regarding the fact that unit cost of construction for determination of income was arrived at by aggregating unit cost of land and unit cost of materials. The unit cost of materials has not been disturbed by the AO and was accepted at Rs.1015.14/- per sq. ft. However, the unit cost of land has been recalculated @ Rs.2885.43 per sq. ft. as against Rs.3293.86/- per sq. ft. adopted by the assessee in respect of Phase III of the project (page 15 of assessment order). The rate of Rs.2885.43/- per sq. ft. is the average of Rs.2637.32/- per sq. ft. (Phase I & II) and Rs.3293.86/- per sq. ft. (Phase III). As a result of the above recalculation, the unit valuation of WIP was Rs.3900.58/- per sq. ft. instead of Rs.4309.00/- per sq. ft. adopted by the assessee. By adopting the above value of Rs.3900.58/- per sq. ft., the AO has determined actual profit at Rs.6,40,05,093/- as against declared profit of Rs.3,20,73,740/-, which is given in a tabular form at para 3.4 (page 17) of the assessment order. Therefore, suppression of profit was Rs.3,19,31,353/- [Rs.6,40,05,093 (-) Rs.3,20,73,740]. The Ld. AR submitted that though different rates have been imputed to the unit costs of land in Phase I & II and Phase III, the land cost absorbed against the revenue has not been higher than its cost. He has submitted that the method adopted by the assessee has been accepted all through except the current assessment year. The additions made in earlier years have been subsequently deleted by the ITAT and Hon’ble High Court. He submitted that the provisions of section 145 of the Act was invoked in AYs.2005-06 and 2007- 13 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise 08 to 2009-10 but the same was deleted by the Hon’ble High Court and ITAT. He further submitted, in the alternative, that if the department re-determined the costs which needs to be absorbed against sales, the same has to be applied to the closing inventories. He also submitted that there is no loss of revenue on the whole because if lower cost of land is absorbed in earlier years, in the subsequent year, higher cost of land has to be necessarily absorbed. He further stated that the average worked out by AO can be done only on the fag-end of the project and it is impossible to determine it from the first year. 9.1 We have again perused the record in view of the strong rival submissions of the parties. The Ld. AR submitted that logic of consistency should be followed and the method adopted by assessee should not be disturbed. We do not agree to the above proposition. It is well-established that principles of res judicata is not applicable to Income-tax proceedings. An assessment year under the Income-tax Act is a self-contained assessment period and a decision in one assessment year does not ordinarily operate as res judicata in respect of the matter decided in subsequent year, because the AO is not a Court and he is not precluded from arriving at a conclusion inconsistent with his conclusion in another case. It has been so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs. CIT, 44 ITR 529 (SC) and Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs. CIT, 63 ITR 416 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT, 953 AIR 509 (SC) also held that for Income-tax purposes, each year is a self-contained 14 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise accounting period and one can only take into consideration income, profits and gains made in that year and be not concerned with potential profits which may be made in another year. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that the method followed in the earlier should be accepted for consistency purpose is not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra. We respectfully follow the ratio of the above decisions. On the other hand, as held in the case of British Paints India Limited (supra), the AO is duty bound to consider whether the books of account disclosed the correct income of the assessee. It is incorrect to say that the AO is bound to accept the system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the correctness of which has not been questioned in the past. The unit cost has been overvalued as proved by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that rejection of books of account u/s 145 of the Act and additions in various earlier years have been deleted by ITAT and Hon'ble Court. But he has himself submitted that the issues were different and not the issue contested in the appeal before us, i.e., restatement of cost allocable to units sold out of closing work in progress. Since the facts are different, ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court is not applicable to the instant appeal. Ld. AR also relied on the decision in case of CIT vs. SBJ VAN Compounders (P.) Ltd., 37 taxmann.com 353 (Guj.) to canvass about the logic of consistency. The ratio of the above decision is not applicable to present case because facts of the above decision are distinguishable. In the case relied upon, identical claim was accepted in preceding assessment year. Hence, Hon'ble High Court held that similar claim 15 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise was to be accepted in current year also. In the present case the issue of restatement of cost allocable to units sold was neither raised nor discussed in the preceding assessment order. The question of accepting a claim does not arise if such claim was not at all raised / discussed at the first instance. Since facts are distinguishable, the ratio will not apply to the instant appeal. 9.2 Reverting to the facts of the case, there is no dispute that assessee purchased a large piece of land before the project was started. It is the same land on which all three phases have been constructed. Hence, cost of land cannot be different for different phases. The AO has rightly stated that since historical cost of land has been adopted across all phases of construction, there would be no impact of time difference of a few years on costing. The historical cost principle states that a company or business must account for and record all assets at the original cost or purchase price on their balance sheet. No adjustments are made to reflect fluctuations in the market or changes resulting from inflationary fluctuations. Hence, the rate adopted by AO of the unit cost of land @ Rs.2885.43 per sq. ft., being average of all phases, is correct and the same is upheld. 9.3 However, there is justification in the alternative submission of the Ld. AR. Since the cost re-determined by the AO to be absorbed against the sales has been confirmed, the same has to be applied to the closing inventories. The AO has determined the cost @ Rs.3,900.58/- per sq. ft. including rate of Rs.2885.43/- per sq. ft. of land. He has reworked the unit cost of land and not the unit cost materials etc. Hence, the cost of closing inventories (land only) 16 ITA.26/SRT/2023/AY.2014-15 Shanti Enterprise should also be valued at the above rate. The AO is directed to recalculate the value of land in the closing inventories after obtaining the necessary details from the assessee. The assessee is directed to submit all the details necessary for proper working of the inventory as directed above. In the result, Ground No.3 is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 06/11/2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 06/11/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "