THE ACIT, Circle-4,, Surat v. M/S. UNICK PLASTIC SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., Surat

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' [BEFORE SH. MUKUL SHRAWAT JM AND SH. A N PAHUJA AM] ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2003-04) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX CIRCLE-4 SURAT V/S M/S UNICK PLASTIC SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 27 NAVMANGLAM COMPLEX CITY LIGHT ROAD SURAT [PAN:AAACU2721K] [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI M C PANDIT DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI RASESH SHAH AR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 05- 09-2006 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-III SURAT RAISES THE FOLLOWING FOUR GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A)-III SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDI TION OF RS.8 11 450/- OUT OF RS.14 87 707/- MADE BY THE AO. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-III SURAT HAS NOT APPRECIATED TH E FACT THAT FURTHER ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF DAY-TO-DAY STOCK REGISTER AND FALL IN LOW GP RATE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.19 92 577/- FILED ON 23/10/2 003 BY THE ASSESSEE TRADING IN PVC ITEMS AFTER BEING PROCESS ED ON 27.2.2004 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE ACT] WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY WITH THE ISSU E OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 27-02-2004. DURING THE YEAR U NDER ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 2 CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED GROSS PROFIT[ GP] @ 15.14% ON TURNOVER OF RS.4 22 11 950/- AS AGAINST GP OF 20.19 % ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.2 82 87 553/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRE CEDING YEAR. A SURVEY ACTION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PR EMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7.1.2003 WHEN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE GP RATIO FOR THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD WAS 17.52% (WHICH CAME TO 22.26% IF THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY WAS ALSO CONSIDERED) AND IN THE POST- SURVEY PERIOD IT WAS MERE 9.88% I.E. FALL OF 7.64% VIS--VIS GP IN THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD (FALL OF 12.38% IF PRE-SURVEY GP RATE IS TAKEN AS 22.26%). DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTUAL CASH OF RS.1 36 878/- WAS FOUND AS AGAINST CASH OF RS.10 189/-AS PER BOOK S WHILE PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS VALUED AT RS.49 65 947/-AS A GAINST STOCK OF RS.35 91 747/-AS PER BOOKS. THIS DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 26 689/- IN CASH AS ALSO EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 13 74 000/- WAS ADMITTE D BY ONE OF THE DIRECTORS SHRI GIRINBHAI B LABHA AS UNACCOUNTED CAS H/INCOME NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY . ACCORDINGLY THE SAID DIRECTOR AGREED TO DISCLOSE T HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT RECOR DED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OF SHRI GIRIN B LABHA DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- Q. 11 AS YOU HAVE STATED IN Q. NO.9 AND Q. NO.10 TH AT THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED IN CURRENT YEARS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT I.E. CASH RS. 1 26 689 STOCK RS. 13 74 200 ----------------- TOTAL RS. 15 00 889 THIS UNACCOUNTED CASH AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED IN YOUR CURRENT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DO YOU AGREE OR NOT? ANS. 11 YES I DO ACCEPT THAT RS.15 00 889/- IS UNA CCOUNTED INCOME EARNED IN OUR BUSINESS WHICH IS NOT ACCOUNTED IN TH E CURRENT FINANCIAL YEARS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. MYSELF AND OTHER DIRECTORS AGREE TO PAY THE TAX PAYABLE ON THIS AMOUNT. AND THIS AMOUNT WILL BE SHO WN IN OUR COMPANYS ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 3 REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME AND AS PER RULES INCOME-TAX SHALL BE PAID. 2.1 INTER ALIA DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PRODUCE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER SHOWING QUANTITY-WISE QUALITY-WISE AND AMOUNT-WISE BREAK UP OF VARIOUS ITEMS TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN AFTER RE PEATED REQUESTS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE'S A.R. IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 17.11.2005 STATED THAT 'DUE TO HUNDREDS OF ITEMS OF DIFFERENT TYPES QUALITY AN D MEASUREMENT IT WAS NOT PRACTICABLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN DA Y-TODAY QUANTITATIVE RECORDS' NOR THE LD. AR COULD SUBSTANT IATE THE REASONS FOR FALL IN GP. EVEN IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST MADE V IDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 17.11.2005 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE A SSESSEE MERELY STATED THAT DUE TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ASSES SEE COULD NOT MAINTAIN THE DETAILED INVENTORY REGISTER AND IT WAS NOT PRACTICA BLE TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE COMPARISON DUE TO THOUSANDS OF ITEMS. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SALES TO DEALERS AT LOWER PRICE RESULTING IN LOWER GP RATE. ACCORDINGLY A SEPARATE GP WORKING F OR DEALERS' SALES AND RESIDUAL SALES WAS FURNISHED FOR BOTH THE YEARS . SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DAY-TO-DAY QUANTITAT IVE RECORDS OF THE STOCK OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO VERIFY T HE INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF THE QUANTITY WHILE TOTAL SALES TO DEALER S WERE AROUND 25% IN BOTH THE YEARS THE AO CONCLUDED IT WAS NOT POS SIBLE TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALES OR CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS . ACCORDINGLY THE AO REJECTED BOOK RESULTS INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 145(3) OF THE ACT WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE CAS E OF S.N. NAMASLVAVAM CHETTIAR VS. CIT (1960)38 ITR 679 (SC) DHONDIRAM DALICHAND VS. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 609 (BOM) AMIVA KU MAR ROV & BROS VS. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 306 (CAL) ACTION ELECT RICALS VS. DCIT (2002) 258 ITR 188 (DEL.) DABROS INDUSTRIAL CO (P) LTD VS. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 424 (CAL) RATANLAL OM PRAKASH VS. C IT 132 ITR 640 ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 4 (ORI..) BHARAT MILK PRODUCTS VS. CIT 128 ITR 682 (A LL.) H. DELTA ENGINEERING CO PVT. LTD VS. CIT 187 ITR 383 (ALL.) BESIDES DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN GOYAL SILK MILLS PVT. LTD VS. ACIT C OMPANY CIRCIE-2 SURAT (ITA NO. 2922/AHD/1995 DATED 23.6.2003 FOR A. Y.1991-92) OJAS TECHNO VS. ACIT ITA NO. 1394/95 DTD.30.12.2002 AND SURESH SCRAP IN ITA NO. 4248/95 DATED 2.11.2001 AND PROCEE DED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE AO COMPARED THE TRADING RESUL TS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH THE PRECEDING YEAR AS UNDE R: AY 2002-03 DEALER NON-DEALER TOTAL SALES 57 16 511 2 25 71 041 2 82 87 552 GROSS PROFIT 4 49 137 52 62 815 57 11 952 GP RATIO 7 86% 23.32% 20.19% AY 2003-04 DEALER NON-DEALER TOTAL SALES 1 27 13 748 2 94 98 202 4 22 11 950 GROSS PROFIT 7 47 580 56 42 525 63 90 105 GP RATIO 5.88% 19.13% 15.19% FALL 1.98% 4.19% 5% CONSIDERING THE GP RATE ON SALES TO DEALERS AND NO N-DEALERS SEPARATELY THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 51 732/- AND RS.12 35 975/- RESPECTIVELY TO THE INCOME AS COMPU TED IN PARA 6.6. OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THEIR C ONTENTIONS BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.8 11 450/- IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:- BEFORE ME THE ID. AR SUBMITTED THAT FULL DETAILS A LONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND NO DISCREP ANCY WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE AND SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND BY THE AO. IT WAS ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 5 PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN A DAY-TO-DAY S TOCK REGISTER BECAUSE OF A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS TRADED BY THE APPELLAN T. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE DEALER SALE HAD GONE UP FROM 57 LAKHS TO RS.1.27 CRORES AND OUT OF TOTAL INCREASE IN TURNOVE R 50% WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEALERS WHERE THE MARGIN OF PROFIT WAS LOW. THE TOTAL SALES TO DEALERS WAS 20.21% IN EARLIER YEAR AND 30.12% IN THE CURREN T YEAR WHICH MEANT THAT THE LOW MARGIN SALES INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY I N THE CURRENT YEAR RESULTING IN LOWER GP. THE ID. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS LIKE NAMES ADDRESSES SALES PURCHASE COST ON SPECIFIC SALES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO COULD NOT FIND EVEN A SINGLE TRAN SACTION OF EXAGGERATION OF PURCHASE OR SUPPRESSION OF SALE. T HEREFORE THE AO'S ACTION IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS U/S. 145(3) WA S NOT IN ORDER. THE ID. AR RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS A CONSID ERABLE FALL IN GP COMPARED TO LAST YEAR AND THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS SURRENDERED EXCESS STOCK OF 13.74 LACS DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPE RATIONS U/S. 133 A OF THE I.T. ACT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT DAY-TO-DAY STOCK R EGISTER WAS NOT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND EVEN IF THE APPELLANT'S CONTEN TION THAT THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF ITEMS .OF DIFFERENT TYPES IS ACCEPTED IT IS NOT VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN A DAY-TO-DAY STOCK INVENTORY. THE PRESENT DAY BUSINESSMEN NORMALLY MAINTAIN THEIR ACCOUNTS ON COMPUTERS BY US ING SIMPLE SOFTWARE AND THEREFORE IT WILL NOT BE SUCH A DIFFICULT TASK TO MAINTAIN A DAILY INVENTORY. OTHERWISE A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD NO T BE IN A POSITION TO FIND OUT THE CORRECT STATE OF HIS AFFAIRS. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND ALSO DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE CASH SALES OF RS.24 70101/- WERE THROUGH SELF GENERATED VOUCHERS AND THAT THE FACT THAT THE FALL IN GP IS ABOUT 5% COMPARED TO LAST YEAR I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE AO'S ACTION IN RESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) SINCE FR OM THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL THE AO WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. THIS VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE HON'B LE IT AT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S.GOYAL SILK MILLS VS. CIT IN ITAN O.2922/AHD/95 DATED 23.6.2003. THEREFORE THE AO'S ACTION IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS U/S. 145(3) IS UPHELD. NOW COMING TO THE ESTIMATION OF PROFITS IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO AT THE SAME VALUE AS DURING THE LAST YEAR. HOWEVER NO SPECIFIC REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AS TO W HY THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME AS IN LAST YEAR. TH ERE COULD BE SO MANY REASONS FOR FLUCTUATION OF GROSS PROFIT AND NO ONE CAN HAVE A STATIC GP RATIO EVERY YEAR IN-PRESENT DAY MARKET. THE ONLY MA NIPULATION IF AT ALL WHICH CAN BE POSSIBLE IS IN RESPECT OF GROSS PROFIT DECLARED DURING THE PRE- SURVEY PERIOD IN THIS CASE AND THE POST-SURVEY PERI OD. TO OFFSET THE DECLARATION OF UNEXPLAINED STOCK AND CASH DURING TH E SURVEY OPERATION THE EXPENSES IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD ARE GENERALLY IN FLATED. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IS INTO TWO KIN DS OF SALES ONE WHICH IS MADE TO DEALERS AND THE OTHER -WHICH IS MADE TO NO N-DEALERS. DURING THE ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 6 PRE-SURVEY PERIOD THE TOTAL DEALERS' SALES ARE RS. 71 29 440/- AND THE GROSS PROFIT WORKS OUT TO 5.70% WHEREAS DURING THE POST SURVEY PERIOD THE DEALER SALES ARE RS.55 84 308/- AND THE GROSS PROFI T WORKS OUT TO 6.09%. THIS MEANS THAT THE POST-SURVEY RESULTS ARE BETTER IN SO FAR AS DEALERS SALE IS CONCERNED AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT SINCE THE BOOK RESULTS ARE BETTER IN THE POST- SURVEY PERIOD. HOWEVER COMING TO NON-DEALER SALE TOTALING RS.2 18 86 101/- DURING THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD THE GP WORKS OUT TO 21.37% WHEREAS ON TOTAL NON DEALERS SALE OF RS.76 1 2 101/- DURING THE POST SURVEY PERIOD THE GP WORKS OUT TO 12.66% ONLY WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS A STEEP DECLINE IN THE PROFITS DECLARED IN THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD. THIS LEADS TO AN IMPRESSION THAT EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INFLATED OR COST PRICE OR SALE PRICE HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY REFLECTED IN T HE ACCOUNTS. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT GROSS PROFIT DECLARED DURING T HE POST-SURVEY PERIOD HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED AND IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASON ABLE TO RECALCULATE PROFITS ON THE SALES MADE DURING THE POST-SURVEY PE RIOD BY ADOPTING THE GP RATE OF LAST YEAR WHICH WAS 23.32% AS AGAINST 12 .66% DECLARED DURING THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE GP HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED BY 10.66% ON POST-SURVEY PERIOD SALES OF RS.76 12 101/- AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION ON THIS-ACCOUNT WORKS OUT T O RS.8 11 450/-. THE ADDITION THEREFORE IS DIRECTED TO BE RESTRICTED T O THIS AMOUNT ONLY. 4 THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT DEALERS MARGIN BEING FIXED THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ATTRIBUTED TO SALES TO DEALERS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING REJECTION O F BOOK RESULTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OFFERED TO TAX DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXCESS STOCK OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDISPUTEDLY GP RATE WORKED OUT TO 22.26% IN THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD WHILE IN THE POST SURVEY PERI OD IT WORKED OUT TO MERE 9.88%. ONLY DISPUTE BEFORE US IS REGARDIN G APPLICATION OF GP RATE AND THE RESULTANT ADDITION. THE AO APPLIED LAST YEARS GP RATE SEPARATELY TO SALES ATTRIBUTED TO DEALERS AND NON-DEALERS WHILE THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED TRADING RESULTS ATTRIBUTED TO SALES TO DEALERS AND APPLIED GP RATE OF THE PRECEDING YEAR TO POST- SURVEY SALES TO ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 7 NON-DEALERS THE GP RATE DURING THE POST SURVEY PER IOD BEING MERELY 12.66% AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING ALREADY OFFERED TO T AX AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 00 889/- FOR THE PRE-SURVEY PERIOD. AS REGARD S ESTIMATION OF PROFITS NO DOUBT THE AO/CIT(A) SHOULD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME EVEN IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND SHOUL D NOT ACT TOTALLY ARBITRARILY BUT THERE IS NECESSARILY SOME AMOUNT OF GUESS WORK INVOLVED IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AND IT IS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHO IS T O BLAME AS HE DID NOT SUBMIT PROPER ACCOUNTS AND DETAILS.[ KACHWALA GEMS VS JCIT 288 ITR 10 (2007)(SC) ]. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE TRAD ING RESULTS WITH COGENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) NOR EVEN A NY MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US SO AS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MAT TER WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE UPHOL DING REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS AND SUSTAINING THE ADDITION APPLYING THE GP RATE OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR TO SALES ATTRIBUTED TO NON-DEALERS DURING THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD THERBEING NO COGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE ABNORMAL F ALL IN GP RATE BY 10.66%. IT IS TRUE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A) ARE NOT F ETTERED BY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND ARE ENTITLED TO ACT ON MATERIALS WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT OF LAW NEVERTHELESS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHOULD ADOPT A METHOD WHICH MUST REFLECT THE PROFITS TRULY AND JUS TLY[ GEMINI PICURES LTD. VS CIT (1958) 33 ITR 547 (MAD).] FOR ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) CAN ALWAYS HAVE A LOOK AT THE MARGIN RETURNE D IN COMPARABLE CASES OR EVEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WA S ABNORMAL FALL IN GP RATE IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION VIS--VIS PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NO COGENT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) OR EVEN BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF BOOK RESULTS WHILE HUGE UNACCOUNTED STOC K WAS DETECTED DURING THE SURVEY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE GP RATE[23.32%] OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHILE UPHOLDIN G REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS HAVING RECOURSE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL WARRANTING ADDITION ATTRIBUTED TO SALES TO DEALERS DURING THE POST SURVEY PERIOD WE ARE NOT ITA NO.2650/AHD/2006 8 INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A). THEREFORE GROUND NOS. 1& 2 IN THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NOS. 3 &4 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE DO N OT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED . 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 14 -05 -2010 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 14-05-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. M/S UNICK PLASTIC SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 27 NAVMANG LAM COMPLEX CITY LIGHT ROAD SURAT 2. THE ACIT CIRCLE-4 SURAT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-III SURAT 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD