JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— This appeal is by the Revenue, challenging the concurrent finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Commissioner" for short), which has been confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench "B", (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in I. T. A. No. 475/Bang/1999, dated August 27, 2003, for the assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue has presented this appeal raising the following two substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authorities were justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 3,41,659 being the value of the plant and machinery purchased on March 31, 1996, which was in transit and which has not been reflected in the closing stock by the assessee on March 31, 1996 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below were justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 5,65,000 added by the Assessing Officer towards the closing stock? 2. The assessee for the relevant assessment year filed its return of income on November 20, 1996, declaring an income of Rs. 4,13,120. The same was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of the scrutiny, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the plant and machinery purchased on March 31, 1996, was not reflected in the closing stock and similarly, the statement shown to the banker and in the return of income filed by the assessee before the Department there is a difference in value of closing stock to an extent of Rs. 5,65,000. Therefore, these two amounts were included as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. This order was questioned by the assessee by filing an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. 3. The Appellate Commissioner after hearing the parties noticed that the plant and machinery were dispatched by its manufacturer on March 31, 1996, from Poona. Actually, the plant and machinery were delivered to the assessee in the next assessment year and, therefore, the inclusion of the value of the plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 3,41,659 has to be deleted. 3. The Appellate Commissioner after hearing the parties noticed that the plant and machinery were dispatched by its manufacturer on March 31, 1996, from Poona. Actually, the plant and machinery were delivered to the assessee in the next assessment year and, therefore, the inclusion of the value of the plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 3,41,659 has to be deleted. Similarly, the Appellate Commissioner was also opined that the assessee being a small scale industrial unit and the stock being governed by the excise rules and were in the warehouse, it was possible for the assessee to show the value of the closing stock for the purpose of banking and disclosing the lesser amount in the return of income filed before the Assessing Officer. The Appellate Commissioner accepted the explanation offered by the assessee that it being a small scale unit, is unable to maintain an accountant by paying huge salary and the entire stock-in-trade was in the warehouse governed by the excise rules. The Tribunal after hearing the parties has concurred with the finding of the Appellate Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is not the case of the Revenue that actually the plant and machinery were delivered to the assessee on March 31, 1996, at Bangalore. It is the specific case of the Revenue that the plant and machinery were dispatched on March 31, 1996, from Poona and the same is required to be delivered to the assessee at Bangalore. Therefore, it is not the contention of the Revenue that on the same day, the plant and machinery reached the asses-see's premises. But, what is contended before us by the learned Counsel for the Department is that the plant and machinery were under transit and it was for the assessee to reflect the same in the books of account. It is no doubt true that the assessee has not done it. Merely because it has not been done is not a ground to assess the value of the goods received by the assessee after March 31, 1996, as an income. Therefore, we have to answer substantial question of law No. 1 against the Revenue. It is no doubt true that the assessee has not done it. Merely because it has not been done is not a ground to assess the value of the goods received by the assessee after March 31, 1996, as an income. Therefore, we have to answer substantial question of law No. 1 against the Revenue. So far as substantial question of law No. 2 is concerned, both the Appellate Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have given a categorical finding that the stocks available with the assessee were in the warehouse and governed by the excise rules and it is also expressed by both the parties that it was always possible for the assessee to show the value of the stock-in-trade based on the actual realisable value to the Department and reflected value of the stock-in-trade for the purpose of banking. Therefore, we have to answer substantial question of law No. 2 also against the Revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal is failed and the same is dismissed.