Swiss Glass Coat Equipment Ltd.,, Anand v. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Baroda

ITSSA 61/AHD/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6120516 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AACCS6297G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 61/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Swiss Glass Coat Equipment Ltd.,, Anand
Respondent The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 29-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 13-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 13-01-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 18-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PHAUJA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2003-04 & 2004-05 DATE OF HEARING:13.1.10 DRAFTED:15.1.10 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. H-106 GIDC VITTHAL UDYONAGAR ANAND GUJARAT PAN NO.AACCS6297G V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 BARODA (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI SAURABH N SOPARKAR AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI SHELLEY JINDAL CIT DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF DIFFERENT ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD I N APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-IV/215- 216.B/CENTRAL CIRCLE-1/08-09 DATED 17-03-2009. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY THE ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE-1 BARODA U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 31-12-2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE FIRST COMMON LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN GROUND NO.1 AS REGARDS TO JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE IS AS REGARDS TO DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF BR EVITY WE WILL TAKE THE GROUNDS AS IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/009 A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. V. ACIT CC-1 BRD PAG E 2 RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1 AND 2 :- IT(SS)A NO.61/AHD/2009 1. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FATS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1 74 163/- MADE BY AO DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE ACT ON OTHER INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.5 80 543/-. 2. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ADJUDICATING ONLY THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EARNED ON FDR CLAIMED AS D EDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT WHEREAS HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON OTHER RECEIPTS D ISALLOWED BY AO THAT WERE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF T HE ACT. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUDICATED ON EVERY ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM B Y THE APPELLANT AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE IGNORED OR OVERLOOKED THE SAME. 4. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGU ED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ISSUE ARE REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION ON THE AMOUNT OF SALES TAX REFUND AT RS3 91 491/- AND THE INSURANCE CLAIM AT R S34 100/- INTEREST ON FDRS RS.1 52 851/- AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AT RS.2 040/ - AND BANKING INTEREST AT RS.61/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 INSURANCE C LAIM AT RS.61 224/- INTEREST ON FDRS AT RS.97 022/- AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AT RS. 385/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE ISSUE R EGARDING ISSUE OF INTEREST ON FDRS AND BANKING INTEREST. AS FAR AS MISCELLANEOUS INCOM E ALSO HE HAS NOT PRESSED THE ISSUE DUE TO SMALLNESS OF QUANTUM. AS REGARDS TO S ALES TAX REFUND AND INSURANCE CLAIM THE LD COUNSEL STATED THAT THE SALES TAX REFU ND IS DIRECTLY OUT OF SALES MADE OUT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB. AS REGARDS TO INSURANCE CLAIM LD. COUNSEL REQUESTE D FOR NETTING OF INSURANCE CLAIM ONLY. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. CIT DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT NEITHER THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THEIR SPECIFIC FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SALES TAX REFUND OR INSURANCE AMOUNT HAD BEEN DERIVED FROM THE MANUFACT URING ACTIVITIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS SINCE THEIR ORDERS ARE NOT SPEAKING ONE ACCORDINGLY WE CONSIDER IT FAIR & APPROPRIATE TO VACATE THE FINDIN G OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THIS DIR ECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT ON THE SA LES TAX REFUND AND INSURANCE AMOUNT AND RECORD HIS SPECIFIC FINDINGS AS TO WHETH ER OR NOT THE AMOUNT WAS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDE RTAKINGS AND THEREAFTER ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING REA SONABLE & SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/009 A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. V. ACIT CC-1 BRD PAG E 3 OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE DIRECTI ONS THIS COMMON GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION BY CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF EX CESSIVE STOCK. FOR THIS ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3 :- IT(SS)A NO.61/AHD/2009 3. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.27 75 131/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE EV IDENCE PRODUCED AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS PROPE R PERSPECTIVE AND HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS PREJUDICIAL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE QU ASHED. IT(SS)A NO.62/AHD/2009 3. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1 21 97 610/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXCES S STOCK. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE EV IDENCE PRODUCED AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS PROPE R PERSPECTIVE AND HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH IS COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS PREJUDICIAL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE QU ASHED. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE COMMON I SSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19-01-2006 AND DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY DETAILS OF SEMI FINISHED AND FINISHED STOCK WERE SEIZED VIDE P AGE 111 OF ANNEXURE-A/5 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FIGURES PERTAINS T O AY 2003-04 AND AY 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN COMPARED THESE FIGURES TO TH E FIGURES IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THESE YEARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HE NOTED THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES: FINISHED GOODS DATE AS PER PAGE 111 AS PER BALANCE SHEET DIFFERENCE 31/03/2004 32 48 000 30 78 925 1 69 075 31/03/2003 54 08 800 5 48 410 390 SEMI FINISHED GOODS DATE AS PER PAGE 111 AS PER BALANCE SHEET DIFFERENCE IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/009 A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. V. ACIT CC-1 BRD PAG E 4 31/03/2004 3 59 75 000 2 39 46 465 1 20 28 535 31/03/2003 2 41 25 000 2 13 50 759 27 74 741 ACCORDINGLY HE SUMMED UP THE DIFFERENCE AS UNDER:- AY 2003-04 AY 2004-05 FINISHED GOODS 390 1 69 075 SEMI FINISHED GOODS 27 74 741 1 20 28 535 TOTAL 27 75 131 1 21 97 610 THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12-1 1-2007 REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE DIFFERENCES AND ALSO TO GIVE R EASON AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE ASS ESSEE FILED HIS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 06-12-2007 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THESE FIGURES OF STOCK SHOWN IN PAGE 111 WERE THE FIGURES GIVEN TO BANK AND THE SAME WER E ON ESTIMATE BASIS WHEREAS IN THE BALANCE-SHEET THE SAME WERE AS PER THE ACTUA L WITH REGARD TO THE SEMI- FINISHED GOODS THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAME WE RE ESTIMATED BY REDUCING 20% FROM THE OTHER VALUE AND GIVEN TO THE BANK. THE SAM E EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 19-01-200 6 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS THE WORKING BY ACCOUNTING STAFF FOR THE PREPARATION OF CMA DATA FOR THREE YEARS AND AS PER THE SAME IT IS THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE SHEET IS ONLY WORK-IN-PROGRESS. ACCORDING T O IT THE RAW MATERIALS ARE ALSO CONSIDERED THE STOCK AS PER BOOK IS MORE THAN THAT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED SHEET. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING:- THE EXPLANATION THAT THE FIGURES REPRESENTED DETAI LS GIVEN TO BANK WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF SEARCH. THE SAME WAS R EPEATED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ONLY WHEN ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE VERIFICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS STAND. PAGE 111 CONTAINS A NUMBER OF OTHER FIGURES APART F ROM THE STOCK-FIGURES. ALL THE OTHER FIGURES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND WERE FOUND CORRECT. THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT WHILE REST OF THE FIGURES ARE CORRECT ONLY THESE F IGURES WOULD BE WRONG. IT IS IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/009 A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. V. ACIT CC-1 BRD PAG E 5 ONCE AGAIN REITERATED AT THIS POINT THAT SEIZED MAT ERIAL IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NOT IN PIECE MEAL AS PER THE CONVE NIENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE STOCK FIG URES SHOWN ARE ONLY WORK IN PROGRESS FIGURES AND RAW MATERIAL DATA IS NOT ADDE D TO IT. HOWEVER AS WORK IN PROGRESS AND RAW MATERIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT HEADS A S PER ACCOUNTING STANDARDS THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE SAME SHOULD B E CLUBBED TOGETHER. FURTHER EVEN IF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS ACCEP TED THE TOTAL OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND RAW MATERIALS DO NOT MATCH THE FIGURES GIVEN IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT AS NEGLIGIBLE UNACC OUNTED STOCK WAS FOUND IN SURVEY THIS PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAV E ANY UNACCOUNTED STOCK. HOWEVER IN SURVEY STOCK WRT. AY 2006-07 WAS FOUND AND TAKEN WHEREAS THE ABOVE FIGURES RELATE TO EARLIER AYS. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AS UNSATISFACTORY. ON IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT HE ASSESSEE HAD UNDISCLOSED STOCK IN AY 2003-04 AND AY 2004-05 AS WAS MENTIONED IN PAGE 111 SEIZED WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK TO ASSESSEES IN COME ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE MADE. THEREFORE AN ADDITION OF RS.27 75 131/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT A Y. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ALSO MADE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK ON EXACTLY SIMILAR FACTS. 8. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- 3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSME NT ORDERS IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO VERIFY THE FIGURES GIVEN TO THE BANK AS CLAIMED BUT THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE CHANGED STATING THAT IT WAS WORKING BY THE ACCOUNT STAFF FOR THE PREPARATION OF CMA DATA F OR THREE YEARS AND STOCK SHOWN IN THE SHEET WAS ONLY WORK IN PROGRESS AND NO TING ON THE PAPER WERE A ROUGH CALCULATIONS. BUT THE CONTENTION THAT THE FI GURES MENTIONED ON PAGE- 111 OF ANNEXURE-A/5 WERE GIVEN TO THE BANK WAS STAT ED DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS INITIALLY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED TO SHOW THAT THESE WERE ROUGH CALCULATIONS ONLY. HOWEVER THE OTHER FIGURES MENTIONED ON THIS PAPER WERE ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT AS CORRECT WHEREAS THE STOCK FIGURES WERE CONTENDED TO BE ONLY ROUGH CALCULATIONS. HENCE AUTHENTICITY AND CORRECT NESS OF THIS PAGE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN TOTO WHEREAS THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT IT IS PARTLY CORRECT AND PARTLY ROUGH CALCULATIONS. FURTHER THE WORK IN PROGRESS AND RAW MATERIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT HEADS WHICH CANNOT BE CLUBBED TOG ETHER AS CONTENDED BY LEARNED COUNSEL. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN MAKING ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STOCK IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/009 A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. V. ACIT CC-1 BRD PAG E 6 AS EXCESS. HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THIS CASE. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION THE ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 9. BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGE-4 WHERE PAGE-111 OF ANNEXURE-A/5 SEIZED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY IS ATTACHED. HE REFERRED THE FIGURES OF FINISHED G OODS AND SEMI-FINISHED GOODS AS RECORDED IN SAID PAGE-111. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THIS FIGURE DO NOT TALLY WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT HE REFERRED TO THE AUD ITED ACCOUNTS WHICH PART OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE-5 AND INTERNAL PAGES OF AUDIT REPORT PAGES NO.1-29. HE PARTICULARLY DRAWN OUR ATTENTION AT PAGE-19 OF T HE AUDIT REPORT AND STATED THAT AS PER INVENTORIES IF THE RAW MATERIAL IS CONSIDERED THEN THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS IS MORE THAN THAT MENTIONED IN SEIZED PAPER 111. HE ALSO S TATED THAT THIS IS ONLY INTERNALLY WORKING FOR THE PREPARATION OF CMA DATA FOR THREE Y EARS AND THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY UNACCOUNTED STOCK AND AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THIS FACT IS PROVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY LITERALLY NO DIFFERENC E IN THE STOCK WAS FOUND. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. CIT-DR SHRI SHELLY JIND AL RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND STATED THAT PAGE-111 CONTENTS A NUMBER OF OTHER FIGURES APART FROM STOCK FIGURES AND WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER V ERIFIED THIS FIGURE THESE WERE FOUND CORRECT. ACCORDING TO HIM IT CANNOT BE ACCE PTED THAT WHILE REST OF THE FIGURES ARE CORRECT ONLY THE DIFFERENTIAL FIGURE IS NOT CO RRECT. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE STOCK FIGURES SHOWN ARE ONLY WO RK-IN-PROGRESS AND RAW MATERIAL DATA IS NOT ADDED TO IT THIS STATEMENT IS NOT CORR ECT. ACCORDING TO HIM AS WORK-IN- PROGRESS AND RAW MATERIAL ARE TWO DIFFERENT HEADS F OR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES THERE IS NO REASON WHY A COMBINED STOCK SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN. AS FAR AS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NEGLIGIBLE UN-ACCOUNTED STOCK WAS FOU ND HE STATED THAT THIS STOCK FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS FOUND AND TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE LD. CIT-DR URGED THE BENCH TO CONF IRM THE ADDITION. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED TH E CASE RECORDS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE ASSES SEES PAPER BOOK CONSISTING PAGES 1-35 AND 1-16. WE FIND FROM PAGE-111 OF ANNE XURE-A/5 THAT THERE IS EXCESS IT(SS)A NO.61-62/AHD/009 A.YS 2003-04 & 2004-05 SWISS GLASS COAT EQUIPMENT LTD. V. ACIT CC-1 BRD PAG E 7 FIGURE OF STOCK SHOWN AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS T HAT THIS IS ONLY ROUGH WORKING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACCOUNTING STAFF FOR THE PREPARATIO N OF CMA DATA FOR THREE YEARS. IT WAS ALSO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RAW MATE RIAL IS CONSIDERED THE STOCK AS PER BOOK IS MORE THAN THAT IS MENTIONED IN PAGE-111 OF ANNEXURE-A/5. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS ONLY ROUGH WORKING AS THE PAPER WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S.133A OF THE ACT FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING AT THE SEIZED PAPER-111 WE FIND THAT A FAIR WORKING OF FINISHED GOODS SEMI-FINISHED GOODS AND DEBTORS & C REDITORS IS PROVIDED WHICH PROVES THAT THESE ARE FINANCIAL RESULTS AND THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THESE WITH THE FINAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGL Y WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS ADDITION REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. ACCOR DINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 12. AS REGARDS TO ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ADDITION OF CLOSING STOCK SHOULD FORM PART OF NEXT YEARS OPENING STOCK. WE AGREE WITH THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND DIRECT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS ADDITION IN THE OPENING STOCK OF NEXT YEAR AND ACCO RDINGLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED. 13. I N THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/01/2010 SD/- SD/- (A.N.PHAUJA) (MAHAVIR SIN GH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD DATED :29/01/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD