The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. Pravin Virchand Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 334 of 2022 ==========================================================THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 Versus PRAVIN VIRCHAND SHAH PROP. M/S ASHIRVAD TRADERS ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR KARAN SANGHANI FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAandHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 04/07/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish R.Bhatt assisted by learned advocate Mr. KaranSanghani for M.R. Bhatt & Co. 2.This Tax Appeal is directed against the orderdated 28.01.2022 passed by the Income Taxdated 28.01.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (Forshort “the Tribunal”) in IT(SS)A No. 180/AHD/ 2005 for the block period from 01.04.1996 to06.06.2002 under section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”). 3.The Revenue has proposed the followingsubstantialquestionsoflawfor consideration : "(A) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs.20,42,331/-being unaccounted sale proceeds ofJeera, by ignoring the solemn statementof accountant and documentary evidencesin the form of seized material?" (B) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs.9,10,800/-being unrecorded sale proceeds ofIsabgul, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentaryevidences in the form of seizedmaterial?". (C) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs. 20,98,800/-being unaccounted proceeds of Jeera soldoutside the books of account, byignoring the solemn statement of accountant and documentary evidences inthe form of seized material?" (D) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeletingtheadditionofRs.3,61,77,994/- being the purchaseprice of 567875 kg of Jeera, notrecorded in the regular books of accountof the assessee, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentaryevidences in the form of seizedmaterial?" (E) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs. 29,66,094/-being unrecorded purchase of Isabgul, byignoring the solemn statement ofaccountant and documentary evidences inthe form of seized material?" (F) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs. 9,549/- onaccount of excess stock of 6 bags ofIsabgul, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentaryevidences in the form of seizedmaterial?" (G) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs.1,45,260/-made on account of excess stock ofTarbuj seeds, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentary evidences in the form of seizedmaterial?" (H) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the suspended and protectiveaddition of Rs.1,41,90,841/- made onaccount of unexplained and hidden stockof Jeera, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentaryevidences in the form of seizedmaterial?" (G) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the addition of Rs.1,45,260/-made on account of excess stock ofTarbuj seeds, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentary evidences in the form of seizedmaterial?" (H) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the suspended and protectiveaddition of Rs.1,41,90,841/- made onaccount of unexplained and hidden stockof Jeera, by ignoring the solemnstatement of accountant and documentaryevidences in the form of seizedmaterial?" (I) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting the suspended and protectiveaddition of Rs. 2,27,77,749/- made onaccount of unexplained stock of Jeera of320814 kg found during the course ofsearch, by ignoring the solemn statementof accountant and documentary evidencesin the form of seized material?" (J) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstance of the case and in law, theAppellate Tribunal has erred in deletingthe addition of Rs.1,20,06,548/-, byignoring the solemn statement ofaccountant and documentary/evidences inthe form of seized material?" (K) "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law,the Appellate Tribunal has erred indeleting substantial addition of Rs.19,87,756/- made on account of excessstock of Caster Seeds, by ignoring thesolemn statement of accountant anddocumentary evidences in the form of seized material?" 4.The assessee is a proprietor of M/s. AshirvadTraders engaged in the business of trading oncommission basis. A search under section 132of the Act was carried out on 06.06.2002 ingroup of cases and the assessee was one ofthe person in group. 5.The notice under section 158BC of the Act wasissued and in response thereof assessee filereturn of income for the block period from1.4.1996 to 6.6.2002 declaring undisclosedincome of Rs. 7,95,000/-. 6.The Assessing Officer by assessment orderdated 30.06.2004 passed under sectiondated 30.06.2004 passed under section 158BC(c) of the Act made assessment at Rs.4,61,93,130/- after making addition on different accounts. Being aggrieved, theassessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) who deleted all the additionsmade by the Assessing Officer. The Revenuetherefore, preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order passed by theCIT(Appeals). The Tribunal by the impugnedorder dismissed the appeal. 7.Question(A) pertains to addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccountedsale proceeds of Jeera of Rs.20,42,331/-. The Assessing Officer held that during searchvarious stock of agriculture products wasfound which could not be identified andbifurcated and the assessee sold the goodswithout recording the same in the books. Itwas also found during the course of searchthat the seized bills did not bear address,sales tax number and total sales of 434 bagsof Jeera were reflected in such bills andevidences of purchases and sales were destroyed once they were squared up and sales were not reconciled with books. i) The CIT(Appeals) however, deleted theaddition holding that the assessee onlyearned commission income on such sales and assuch, no addition of total sale proceeds ofJeera as reflected in such bills, could havebeen made by the Assessing Officer treatingthe same as unaccounted sales of theassessee. CIT(Appeals) after considering thesubmissions of the assessee deleted theadditions. destroyed once they were squared up and sales were not reconciled with books. i) The CIT(Appeals) however, deleted theaddition holding that the assessee onlyearned commission income on such sales and assuch, no addition of total sale proceeds ofJeera as reflected in such bills, could havebeen made by the Assessing Officer treatingthe same as unaccounted sales of theassessee. CIT(Appeals) after considering thesubmissions of the assessee deleted theadditions. ii) The Tribunal after hearing both thelearned Departmental Representative as wellas learned Authorised Representative of theassessee and after considering the factualaspects and the submissions and materials andinformation with respect to the seizedmaterial held that the assessee was engagedin the business of selling the goods on commission basis and has offered commissionreceived on sale of 434 bags of Jeera. TheTribunal also considered that reconciliationprovided by the assessee of the entries withthe names of the parties, sale quantity etc.and agreed with the categorical findings offact given by CIT(Appeals) and came to theconclusion that the addition of entire saleproceeds instead of the commission incomefailed on merits and in law and therebyupheld the decision of CIT(Appeals). 8.Question (B) pertains to addition made by theAssessing Officer on account of unrecordedsale proceeds of Isabgul of Rs.9,10,800/-.The Assessing Officer held that the assesseewas found to have sold 506 bags of Isabgulwithout recording the sale proceeds and atthe relevant time, the average sale price ofthe commodity was Rs. 24 per kg and therefore, Assessing Officer assessed the unaccounted sale proceeds of the assessee onthis count to be Rs. 9,10,800/-. i) The CIT(Appeals) considered thereconciliation statement provided by theassessee and the fact that 784 bags were notconsidered of the godown at 118 APMC Unava.CIT Appeals also considered the goodsreceived from the farmers of 1193 kgs lyingin the godown of the assessee. Consideringthe fact even in the proceedings undersection 264 of the Act, department acceptedthat stock of Isabgul is not required to beseized as it is in line with the book stock,CIT(Appeals) deleted the additions made bythe Assessing Officer. ii) The Tribunal after considering thesubmissions made on behalf of both the sidesheld that the assessee has reconciled thequantity and given the details of the farmers whose goods were lying. The stock was dulyreconciled in the paper book filed before theTribunal and the balance stock covered theadat commission disclosed in respect of thequantity of goods that is alleged to havebeen sold as sale made on behalf of thefarmers and the quantity of goods lying withthe assessee even on the date of search. TheTribunal held that the sale computed by theAssessing Officer is without any reference tothe seized material and accordingly,confirmed the order passed by theCIT(Appeals). 9.Question(C) pertains to addition made by theAssessing Officer on account of unaccountedproceeds of Jeera sold outside the books ofaccount of Rs. 20,98,800/-. The AssessingOfficer during the assessment proceedingsfound that the assessee during the FinancialYear 2002-2003 has made sale of Jeera weighing 23,320 kg at the rate of Rs. 90 perKg which was not accounted in the books ofaccount which fact was admitted by theaccountant of the assessee Shri MahendraAmablal Patel. Accordingly, The AssessingOfficer made addition of Rs.20,98,800/- asundisclosed income of the assessee. 9.Question(C) pertains to addition made by theAssessing Officer on account of unaccountedproceeds of Jeera sold outside the books ofaccount of Rs. 20,98,800/-. The AssessingOfficer during the assessment proceedingsfound that the assessee during the FinancialYear 2002-2003 has made sale of Jeera weighing 23,320 kg at the rate of Rs. 90 perKg which was not accounted in the books ofaccount which fact was admitted by theaccountant of the assessee Shri MahendraAmablal Patel. Accordingly, The AssessingOfficer made addition of Rs.20,98,800/- asundisclosed income of the assessee. i) CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition madeby the Assessing Officer by observing thataddition was made on the basis of Statementof the Accountant of the assessee recorded atthe time of search which was subsequentlyretracted by filing affidavit before thecompetent authority. CIT(Appeals)further heldthat the assessee has reconciled the totalquantity of Jeera found and made disclosureof commission income on such sale of Jeeraand therefore, CIT(Appeals) deleted theadditions made by the Assessing Officer. ii) The Tribunal after hearing both thesides found that the addition for unaccounted sale of Jeera was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of admission by theaccountant of the assessee. However, such statement was later on retracted. The Tribunal after referring to the affidavit filed by the accountant found that the assessee has been able to reconcile the quantity of Jeera and commission income earned on such sale. The Tribunal observedthat the CIT(Appeals) while releasing thegoods seized has held that the assessee is engaged in selling various commodities of farmers on commission basis and the assesseehas already disclosed the commission income. The Tribunal therefore concurred with thefindings of the CIT(Appeals). 10.Question (D) pertains to addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.3,61,77,994/- being the unrecorded purchase of 567875 kg ofJeera. The Assessing Officer from the seizedmaterial which includes Vepar Khatu foundthat the assessee had purchased 15,371 bagsof Jeera weighing 845405 Kgs of Jeera whereasthe assessee had recorded purchase of Jeeraat 277530 Kg only and accordingly balance567875 Kg of Jeera remained unaccounted whichwas valued at Rs. 4,03,19,125/-. By takingaverage cost of Jeera at Rs. 71 per Kg., theAssessing Officer has given set off to theextent of Rs. 41,41,131/- on account ofaddition made from unrecorded sales and addedsum of Rs. 3,61,77,994/- to the total incomeof the assessee. i) CIT(Appeals) found that the chartproduced by the assessee regarding the amountof purchases of the seized material to becorrect.CIT(Appeals)heldthatifduplications etc. are excluded, the assessee has purchased 5879 bags which are dulyrecorded in the books of accounts which arealso accepted in the proceedings undersection 264 of the Act and therefore,CIT(Appeals) concluded that there is nojustification for making addition on accountof unrecorded purchase by the AssessingOfficer. ii) The Tribunal after considering thereconciliation statements and materialsplaced before the Assessing Officer andCIT(Appeals) held that so far as the quantityfound and recorded in the books with that ofthe disclosure made has been reconciled. Withregard to the grievance of the Revenue thatpurchase price of 5,67,875 Kg of Jeera notentered in regular books of accounts, theTribunal held that the disputed quantity hasalready been reconciled and accounted for inthe books of accounts and the difference in ii) The Tribunal after considering thereconciliation statements and materialsplaced before the Assessing Officer andCIT(Appeals) held that so far as the quantityfound and recorded in the books with that ofthe disclosure made has been reconciled. Withregard to the grievance of the Revenue thatpurchase price of 5,67,875 Kg of Jeera notentered in regular books of accounts, theTribunal held that the disputed quantity hasalready been reconciled and accounted for inthe books of accounts and the difference in quantity was on account of duplicate entriesfor same bags of Jeera in different seizedmaterial. The Tribunal held that income beingcommission on the bags of Jeera is coveredunder the disclosure of unaccounted incomemade by the assessee. The Tribunalconsidering the reconciliation chart placedbefore it with the seized records and entriespassed in the books and the amount of thecommission disclosed in the return of incomeas undisclosed income, held that there is noinfirmity in the findings of theCIT(Appeals). 11. Question (E) pertains to addition madeby the Assessing Officer on account ofunrecorded purchase of Isabgul of Rs.29,66,094/-. The assessee was found to haveindulged in unaccounted trade of Isabgul tothe extent of 2436 bags which was quantifiedto be 182700 Kg. The Assessing Officer worked out and treated the amount of Rs.36,76,894/-as unexplained investment made by theassessee. Out of this, the sale proceeds of506 bags being Rs.9,10,800/- was taxed by theAssessing Officer under section 69 of theAct. i) CIT(Appeals) after considering the assessment order and considering thereconciliation of the stock positionfurnished by the assessee found that in theworking of 4319 bags seized, goods belongingto the farmer were not included andaccordingly CIT(Appeals) worked out theactual stock including that of the farmersand arrived at conclusion that there were inall 5512 bags of 413388 kgs and not 4494bags. CIT(Appeals) concluded that there wassome mistake in stock staking during thesearch proceedings insofar as the stock inthe front go-down kept in open may not have been taken into account. The Tribunal thusheld that there was no excess stock found inaddition to the stock that was belonging tothe farmers as found during the course ofproceedings under section 264 of the Act andfurther held that the stock has beenreconciled by the assessee. ii) The Tribunal after considering thesubmissions made by both the sides held thatthere is no additional stock found. It washeld that no material is brought on record tosubstantiate the unaccounted purchase of theassessee. It was further held that even thedetails of the farmers whose commodity islying and who have given confirmation havenot been contradicted even though thesedetails were placed well in advance beforethe Assessing Officer in the year 2003 andthe order is passed in 2004. The Tribunaltherefore, in absence of any contradictory material on record concurred with the findings of the CIT(Appeals). 12. Question (F) pertains to addition madeby the Assessing Officer on account of excessstock of 6 bags of Isabgul of Rs. 9,549/-. The Assessing Officer found that unrecordedpurchase of Isabgul was 1930 whereas theexcess stock of Isabgul was found to be 1936and thus there is a difference of 6 bags andaccordingly the Assessing Officer madeaddition of Rs. 9549/- under section 69 ofthe Act. (i) CIT(Appeals) held that there was noexcess stock found in addition to what wasbelonging to the farmers which was foundduring the course of proceedings undersection 264 of the Act and deleted suchadditions. ii) The Tribunal after considering the detailed reconciliation of the stock and thefindings arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) aboutthe quantity of Isabgul, confirmed the orderpassed by the CIT(Appeals). 13.Question (G) pertains to addition made The Assessing Officer found that unrecordedpurchase of Isabgul was 1930 whereas theexcess stock of Isabgul was found to be 1936and thus there is a difference of 6 bags andaccordingly the Assessing Officer madeaddition of Rs. 9549/- under section 69 ofthe Act. (i) CIT(Appeals) held that there was noexcess stock found in addition to what wasbelonging to the farmers which was foundduring the course of proceedings undersection 264 of the Act and deleted suchadditions. ii) The Tribunal after considering the detailed reconciliation of the stock and thefindings arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) aboutthe quantity of Isabgul, confirmed the orderpassed by the CIT(Appeals). 13.Question (G) pertains to addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,45,260/- on account of excess stock of Tarbuj seeds.During the search in the premises of assessee, 16140 Kg of seeds were found fromthe premises which were claimed to bebelonging to some farmers. The AssessingOfficer valued such stock as on the day ofsearch at the rate of Rs.9 per Kg and madeaddition of Rs.1,45,260/- to the income ofthe assessee under section 69 of the Act. i) CIT(Appeals) held that the stock involved is 16140 Kgs and the same belongs to the farmers received by the assessee on “Vasiyati mal” for commission account. CIT (Appeals)held that there is no justification in making the addition as the goods belonged to the farmers received as Vasiyati Mal anddeleted the additions made by the AssessingOfficer. ii) The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by both the parties, inabsence of any contrary material held thatthe contention of the Revenue that Tarbujseeds stock is excess stock of the assesseefails on merits. The Tribunal furtherobserved that the department has alreadyaccepted the fact that the assessee is engaged in the sale of goods on commissionand accordingly the Tribunal upheld the orderpassed by the CIT(Appeals). 14.Question (H) pertains to suspended and protective addition of Rs.1,41,90,841/- made on account of unexplained and hidden stock ofJeera. The Assessing Officer found that therewas total detected unaccounted purchases of567875 Kg of Jeera and total detectedunaccounted sale of 23329 Kg. The AssessingOfficer thereafter incorporating the saidfigures with the accounted turnover, heldthat the assessee should have stock of 668031Kg of Jeera as on 5.6.2002. The AssessingOfficer held that as against this, the totalstock found at the time of search was 468160Kg and thus the stock was falling short tothe extent of 199871 Kgs. The AssessingOfficer valued such stock of 199871 Kg ofJeera at the rate of Rs. 71 per kg andtreated Rs. 1,41,90,841/- as the excess stockremoved and kept hidden by the assessee andadded the same on protective basis to theincome of the assessee. i) CIT(Appeals) held that except for the allegations contained in the assessment orderthat goods were removed from the go-down,nothing is brought on record to conclusivelyestablish such fact. It was held that failureon part of the authorised officer to countthe stock while putting the seal andsubsequent allegation based on news reportwithout any evidence cannot justify suchconclusion of removal of goods. CIT(Appeals)accordingly deleted the protective additionof Rs. 1,41,90,841/- made by the AssessingOfficer. ii) The Tribunal held that the departmenthas not brought any evidence on record toprove that the assessee has removed the stockfrom the go-down. The Tribunal also held thateven the stock found in search were dulyreconciled and the commission on the sale ofsuch goods is already offered to tax and thatthe said amount is accepted by the department. The Tribunal therefore, confirmedthe findings arrived at by the CIT(Appeals). 15.Question (I) pertains toprotective ii) The Tribunal held that the departmenthas not brought any evidence on record toprove that the assessee has removed the stockfrom the go-down. The Tribunal also held thateven the stock found in search were dulyreconciled and the commission on the sale ofsuch goods is already offered to tax and thatthe said amount is accepted by the department. The Tribunal therefore, confirmedthe findings arrived at by the CIT(Appeals). 15.Question (I) pertains toprotective addition of Rs. 2,27,77,749/- made on accountof unexplained stock of Jeera of 320814 kgfound during the course of search. TheAssessing Officer held that the actual stockof Jeera found on the date of search was468160 Kg as against the accounted book stockof Rs.147346 Kg. The Assessing Officertherefore held that on the date of search,stock of 320814 Kgs was found in excess ofthe book stock which was valued at the rateof Rs.71/- per kg, totalling to Rs.2,27,77,794/-.TheAssessingOfficer therefore, held that there is undisclosedincome of the assessee on account of theundisclosed investment and added the same onprotective basis to the income of theassessee. i) CIT(Appeals) held that the purchase of15371 bags as held by the Assessing Officeris not correct and the correct quantity ofpurchase is 7388 bags which is duly recordedin the books of accounts. Similarly,unrecorded sales for which addition has beenmade is on account of commission business andfor that there cannot be any effect in thestock of the assessee. It was further heldthat the assessee in the course of searchproceedings as well as in the assessmentproceedings explained that the stock lyingwith him included stock belonging to thefarmers.CIT(Appeals)takingintoconsideration overall facts of the case,accepted the reconciliation of stock asfurnished by the assessee and deleted theprotective addition of Rs.2,27,77,794/- madefor the excess stock of Jeera. ii) The Tribunal after considering the rivalsubmissions held that the quantity of Jeerafound in the go-down was much more than whatis stated in the statement and the quantityof Jeera is already reconciled by theassessee and therefore, the addition made bythe Assessing Officer was held to beunjustified confirming the order passed bythe CIT(Appeals). 16.Question (J) pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer ofRs.1,20,06,368/- on account of unaccounted cash loans and interest paid. During thesearch in the premises of the assessee, aspiral diary was found wherein some amountswere written in coded figures. The assesseewas asked to explain the nature of thesenotings to which the assessee stated thatthese entries may be either sales or cashtransactions. The Assessing Officer held that after decoding the recordings on such diary,it can be clearly identified that theseamounts which pertains to unexplained cashcredit and unexplained interest to the tuneof Rs.1,20,06,368/- are taxable undersections 68 amd 69C of the Act and areassessable under section 158BB of hte Act.The Assessing Officer held that thesetransactions are undisclosed income of theassessee for which addition was made onprotective basis because a composite additionwas made on the unrecorded purchases made bythe assessee utilizing these funds. i) CIT(Appeals) held that there is nothing onrecord to indicate that the entries in diaryrepresent cash received by the assessee andtherefore, the question of taxing the same ascash credit simply does not arise. TheCIT(Appeals) therefore, held that there is noquestion of the protective addition as held by the Assessing Officer and deleted suchaddition made by the Assessing Officer. ii) The Tribunal held that there is noinconsistency in the finding of theCIT(Appeals) and accepted the findings of theCIT(Appeal) being based on facts. i) CIT(Appeals) held that there is nothing onrecord to indicate that the entries in diaryrepresent cash received by the assessee andtherefore, the question of taxing the same ascash credit simply does not arise. TheCIT(Appeals) therefore, held that there is noquestion of the protective addition as held by the Assessing Officer and deleted suchaddition made by the Assessing Officer. ii) The Tribunal held that there is noinconsistency in the finding of theCIT(Appeals) and accepted the findings of theCIT(Appeal) being based on facts. 17.Question(K) pertains to addition madeby the Assessing Officer of Rs. 19,87,756/- on account of excess stock of Caster Seeds.During the search, stock of castor seeds tothe tune of 466875 Kg was found from thevarious go-downs owned or possessed by theassessee. During the course of proceedingsalso, the assessee owned up the stock of10705 Kg of Castor kept in Godown No. 118 APMC,Unjha belonging to one M/s. Manilal Prabudas. Thus the total stock of castorfound during search was 477580 Kg. The Assessing Officer found that the opening stock of castor as per the books of accountas on 1.04.2002 was 318575 Kg and therefore,there was excess stock of 159005 Kg. TheAssessing Officer held that though it isclaimed by the assessee that some farmers ofRajasthan and North Gujarat have placed thecastor seeds with the assessee for trade, thestock position cannot be reconciled in anymanner. The Assessing Officer therefore,treated the excess stock of castor seedsweighing 159005 Kg valued at the rate of Rs.12.50 per Kg, totalling to Rs. 19,87,562/- asunaccounted investment and added the same tothe income of the assessee. i) CIT(Appeals) held that plea taken by theRevenue that there may be some mistake instock taking, during the search proceedingsinsofar as the stock in front of the go-downkept in open may not have been taken ismerely a presumption. CIT(Appeals) therefore, sustained the addition of Rs. 19,87,756/-. Itwas found that the stock found at the time ofsearch belonged to three concerns namely,M/s. Ashirvaci Trader, M/s. D. Virchand & Co.and M/s. Hasmukhlal Chandrakant & Co. andtherefore, the same could not be segregatedand to be treated as belonging to the threeconcerns and if any undisclosed stock foundor detected, the same had to be dividedequally amongst the three concerns.CIT(Appeals) therefore, held that addition ofRs. 19,87,756/- which has been sustainedshould be equally divided and considered inthe hands of the above-said three concerns.CIT(Appeals) also held that even if theaddition is sustained, the same may beconsidered as application of undisclosedincome shown in the return filed undersection 158BC filed in three cases separately. ii) The Tribunal after considering thesubmissions on both the sides found that theaddition apportioned in respect of all thethree assessees is after taking into accountthe over all aspects of facts explained andon the basis of reconciliation of the commodities. The Tribunal held that the stockwere considered to be of all the threeconcerns together which was accepted by AOand the reconciliation of stock found andrecorded in the books were considered of allthe concerns. The Tribunal held that suchfindings of fact arrived at by theCIT(Appeals) requires no interference. 18.Considering the concurrent findings arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) and theTribunal on the basis of material on record,we are of the opinion that Questions (A) to(K) are based on findings of fact and therefore, the same are not required to be considered. 19.In view of above, we are of the opinionthat no question of law much-less anysubstantial question of law proposed orotherwise arises from the impugned order ofthe Tribunal. Appeal is accordinglydismissed. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)