M/s Taksus Steels Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh V. DCIT, Patiala

ITA 450/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73418 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gross profit estimation; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Wrong claim; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.450/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) TAKSUS STEELS PVT. LTD., VS. THE D.C.I.T., GRAIN MARKET, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. PATIALA. PAN: AAACT6876G AND ITA NO.459/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE A.C.I.T., VS. TAKSUS STEELS PVT. LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE, GRAIN MARKET, PATIALA. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AAACT6876G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE R EVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA DATED 06.02.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/145(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVEN UE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.451/CHD/2012 HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH DEFECT IN THE DULY AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3156401/- ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. RATE IGNORING THAT G.P. RATE IS HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR & IN THE COMPARATIVE CASE CITIED, ACTUAL G.P. RATE IS LOWER THAN THE APPELLANT. OTHERWISE THE HIGHER G.P. RATE EXPLAINED WITH THE EXPENSES CHARGED IN P & L A/C & RESULT IN THE COMPARATIVE CASE PROFITS ARE LESSER THAN THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUES IN THE CROSS APPEALS ARE COVERED BY THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.451/CHD/2012 & ITA NO.458/CHD/2012 (ORDER DATED 12.9.2012) WHERE SIMILAR PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (I NDIA), MANDI GOBINDGARH WHICH WERE HELD TO BE BOGUS BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE BOOK RESULTS WERE ESTIMATED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE HAD RESTRICTED THE ADDITION T O RS.4 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS D ISMISSED. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATION OF THE GP RATE RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.31,56,401/- . 3 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED GP RATE OF 1.60% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.30.23 CRORES AS AGAINST DIFFERENT GP RATES DE CLARED BY OTHER CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE MADE CERTA IN PURCHASES OF PIG IRON FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), MANDI GOBINDGAR H AND ENQUIRIES OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES REVEALED THAT THE SA ID CONCERN WERE INDULGED IN TRADING ACTIVITIES ONLY ON PAPERS AND N O ACTUAL TRANSACTION WAS UNDERTAKEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSEQUENTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) O F THE ACT AND MADE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE U PHELD BY THE CIT (APPEALS). ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT I DENTICAL ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATION OF GP RATE ON IDENTICAL FACTS, AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY THE SAID ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN M/S GIAN CASTINGS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE, PAPER BOOK FILED AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BY THE AO, HAVING REGARD TO THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IS SUFFICIENT, TO RENDER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE AS INCORRECT AND UNRELIABLE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS, FURTHER, OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT SUCH APPROACH DEFINITEL Y MEANS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE RELIABLE, TO WORK OUT THE TRUE PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT. AS SUCH, REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). LD. 'AR' PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF SANGRUR VAN ASPATI MILLS LTD. V ASSTT.CIT (SUPRA) AND PERUSAL THEREOF CLEARLY REVEA LS THAT AS FAR AS BOGUS PURCHASES ARE CONCERNED, THE RELIABILITY, COMPLETEN ESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIE D BY CITING THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL, AS THE SAME HAS BEEN RENDERED ON DIFFERENT FOOTING. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSI ONS AND ALSO HAVING REGARD TO THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND CIT(A), THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT C IT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,20,176/-, ON ACCOUNT OF GP RA TE, IGNORING THE DISCLOSED GP RATE, BEING HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEARS G.P. RATE AND ALSO HIGHER THAN THE COMPARABLE CASES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, LD. 'AR ' PLACED RELIANCE, IN THE CASE OF SANGRUR VANASPATI V ASSTT. CIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN IF 4 THE BOOK RESULTS ARE REJECTED, THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO MAKE A FAIR AND REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF INCOME, BASED ON EVIDENCE AN D MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX V H.M.ESUFALI H.M. ABDULALI 90 ITR (1973) 271 (S.C). 13. LD. 'AR' SUPPORTED HIS CASE, BY PLACING RELIANC E ON PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE AND THE BOOK-VERSION OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE ALSO CITED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07, DATED 6.11.2008, PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREBY DE CLARED GP AT 1.35% HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IT WAS, FURTHER, POINTED OUT BY THE LD. 'AR' THAT OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UND ER REFERENCE CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE GP SHOWN IS BETTER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R REFERENCE. LD. 'AR' FURTHER CONTENDED THAT COMPARABLE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE AO, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, ARE IRRELEVANT AND CANNOT BE USED AGAINST ASSESSEE, AS THE SAME WERE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE CO MPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN QUESTION. HOWEVER, HE ARGUED THAT PROFI T, AFTER WORKING CAPITAL INTEREST PERCENTAGE, IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IS 1.82 % WHEREBY IN COMPARABLE CASE OF S.M.ALLOYS AND METAL, IS 1.58%, WHICH IS LO WER THAN THE ASSESSEES CASE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT P.D.ALLOYS PVT. LTD. SUFF ERED LOSS, WHICH IS CITED AS ANOTHER COMPARABLE CASE. HE JUSTIFIED THE BOOK VER SION AND GP RATE AS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT, IN VIEW OF THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE-RATE, AS PRODUCED, IN THE FORM OF CHART, AT PAGE 58, OF THE PAPER BOOK AS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : GIAN CASTINGS (P) LIMITED, MANDI GOBINDGARH ANALYSIS OF PURCHASE SCRAP (DUTY PAID) FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.06.2007 TO 31.08.2007 PURCHASES WEIGHT ( IN MT) (1) VALUE ( INCLUDING DUTY) (2) RATE PER MT (3) = (2) /(I) EXCISE DUTY ELEMENT INVOLVED (4) VALUE ( WITHOUT EXCISE DUTY) (5) = (2)-(4) RATE PER MT (6) = (5) /(I) PIG IRON FROM ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) 497.135 9990700 20097 1339468 8651232 17402 PIG I RON FROM , PARTIES OTHER THAN ROHIT I SPAT ( INDIA) 1644.235 33576150 20421 4595420 28980730 17626 14. LD. 'AR' ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF RAJAS THAN HIGH COURT IN CIT V GOTAN ALLOYS KHANIJ UDYOG, 256 ITR 243 (RAJ) WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT THAT IF BOOKS ARE REJECTED, ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MANDATORILY MADE. IT IS, FURTHER, SUBMITTED T HAT NO COMPARABLE CASES HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT AND DISCUSSED THE SAME IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AO. IT WAS ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION CA N BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE OBSERVATION OF COMPARABLE CASES. THE ASSESSE E ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO ADDI TION CAN BE MADE WHILE MAKING AN ESTIMATE, PURELY ON SURMISES AND CONJECTU RES, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON ARE AS UNDER :- I) GANGA RAM BALMUKAND V CIT (1937) 5 ITR 464 (LAHORE) 5 II) S.VARIAYA REDDY (1960) 38 ITR 52 (KER) III) INTERNATIONAL FOREST CO. V CIT 101 ITR 721 (J&K) 14(I) THE LD. 'AR' ARGUED THAT ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO IS ALSO NOT LEGALLY TENABLE. THE AO, AFTER REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT, APPLIED THE GP RATE AT 2.5% AS AGAINST THE DECLARED GP RATE AT 1.71%, ON T HE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.36,96,42,502/- AND CONSEQUENTLY, MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS.29,20,176/-. LD. 'AR' STATED THAT GP RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO, IS FOUN DED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD, TO SUPPORT SUCH SUBSTITUTION OF GP RATE BY THE AO. IT WAS, FURTHER , CONTENDED BY THE LD. 'AR' THAT THE AO MERELY MADE A GENERAL OBSERVATION OF SO ME COMPARABLE CASES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE SPECIF IC DETAILS AND BOOK-VERSION OF COMPARABLE CASES RELIED UPON AND ALSO WITHOUT CO NFRONTING THE SAME, TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. IT IS, SPECIFICALLY, ARGUED BY THE LD. 'AR' THAT IN THIS CASE, HIGHER GP RATE WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO, ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN UNSPECIFIED COMPARABLE CASE S, WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. SUCH COMPARABLE CASES WERE NOT INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. IT IS, FURTHER, POINTED OUT THAT CONFRONTIN G SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE BEFORE THE CIT(A), IS AGAINST T HE CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE OPPORTUNITY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE AO, CANNOT CURE A SUBSTANTIVE VIO LATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE DUE TO NON-PROVIDING OF OPPORTUNITY , BY CONFRONTING THE BOOK- VERSION OF UNSPECIFIED COMPARABLE CASES, TO THE APP ELLANT. THE AO, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ADMITTED HIGHER RATE OF GP, IN THE ASSTT. YEAR IN QUESTION, VIS- -VIS THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. L D. 'AR' REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 33-35 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ANNEXED TO THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH REPRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2006-0 7, IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, WHEREBY ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED, ON 6.11. 2008, U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN NO ADDITION, ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP HAD BEEN MADE, BY THE AO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HA D SHOWN GP RATE AT 1.35, ON GROSS TURNOVER OF RS.33,50,44,691/-. LD. 'AR', FURTHER, REFERRED TO PAGES 37- 38 AND 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGES 36-37 REPRESEN T A LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO THE CIT(A), MENTIONING THAT TWO COMPAR ABLE CASES PROVIDED BY THE AO TO THE APPELLANT NAMELY S.M. ALLOYS & P.D ALLOYS (P) LTD. LD. 'AR', FURTHER, REFERRED TO PAGE 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS AN ANNEXURE MARKED AS A WHEREIN PROFIT OF S.M.ALLOYS HAS BEEN SHOWN AT 1.58 %. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF P.D ALLOYS (P) LTD. , LOSS HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. LD. 'AR', FURTHER, REFERRED TO PAGE 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURCHASES OF PIG IRON FROM ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) AND FROM OTHER THAN ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), ARE AT RS.17,402/- AND RS.17,626/- RESPECT IVELY, AS MENTIONED IN COLUMN 6 OF THE CHART. THE LD. 'AR', VEHEMENTLY CO NTENDED THAT ADOPTION OF HIGHER GP BY THE AO IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE CE NVET CREDIT ENTRY FOR RS.13,39,468/- HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE ASSESSEE, I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CENTRAL EXCISE RECORDS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT HAD NO EF FECT ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. LD. 'DR', ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND CIT(A), ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. IT WAS, FURTHER, ARGUED THAT BOTH THE AO AND THE CIT(A), HAVE PASSED DETAILED ORDERS AND ADDITIO N HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF COMPARAB LE CASES. 15(I) WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FA CTS OF THE CASE, PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS, CITED IN THE MATTER. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.29,20,176/-, ON ACCOUNT OF GP, ON THE 6 GROUND OF BOOK VERSION OF COMPARABLE CASES, INFLATI ON IN PURCHASES AND BURNING LOSS. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), AS CONTAINED IN PARA 8 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE AO'S BASIS FOR ASSESSING THE GP RATE AT 2.5% AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. AS I HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE REGARDING MANIPULATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS IN TERMS OF DEBITING BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, THE ISSUE THA T THE IMPUGNED MANIPULATION HAS LED TO SUPPRESSION OF BOOK PROFITS HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED. THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE GP RATE RELIED UPON BY THE ,AO WERE NOT COMPARABLE IS QUITE PLAUSIBLE, EVEN THOUGH THE FACTORS OUT BY THE AR DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN GP RATES. FURTHER IT NEED S TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE MANIPULATION IN OF BOGUS PURCHASES HAS A DIRECT BEA RING ON THE DETERMINATION OF PROFIT RATE. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT PROCURI NG OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS HAS A COST WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS. IT WOULD BE TOO FARFETCHED AN ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED IN THE FRAUD ULENT PRACTICE OF PROCURING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS IN PLACE OF PURCHASES MADE IN CASH JUST TO BALANCE THE STOCK REGISTER. THIS BEING SO IT WOULD BE FAIR TO HOLD TH AT ESTIMATION OF GP RATE BY THE AO AT 2.5% AS AGAINST THE COMPARABLE CASES HAVING H IGHER GP RATE IS CORRECT. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS THEREFORE CONFIRME D. THE AO HAS FURTHER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 13,39,4687- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CEN VAT CREDIT. THE AR IN THIS REGARD HAS MADE A CLEAR SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO THAT THE CENVAT CREDIT HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED AND WAS NOT PART OF THE PURCHASES DEBITED I N THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED THE IMPUGNED AMO UNT OF RS. 13,39,468/- AS PART OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT, THE SAME C AN NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE AO IN THIS REGARD HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT REVERSAL OF ENTRIES IN EXCISE RECORD ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE WOULD NOT ALTER THE FAC T THAT AS THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY .DERIVED THE BENEFIT ON THE FIRST DAY IT MANUFACTUR ED AND SOLD THE GOODS AFTER BOOKING THE BOGUS PURCHASES. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE AO'S CO NCLUSION AS THE SAID AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE WORKING OF PROFITABILITY. AS SU CH THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,39,468/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 15(II) THE AO, HAVING OBSERVED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), AS BOGUS, PROCEEDED TO ENHANCE THE GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 1.71% TO 2.50% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE FACT- SITUATION OF THE CASE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTI RETY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUANTUM OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA CLEARLY BRINGS COGENT MATERIAL, IN POSSESSION OF TH E AO, TO MAKE VALID ADDITION, TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES, AS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT, IN SUCH PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THE AO CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THI S STRAIGHT AND SIMPLE APPROACH AND PREFERRED MAKING ADDITION, SOLELY ON T HE GROUND OF GP, FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.29,20,176/-. THE AO, DEEMED IT FIT, T O MAKE ADDITION ON THE GROUND OF ENHANCED GP RATE, AS AGAINST THE DECLARED GP RATE BY THE APPELLANT. 16. THE CIT(A), WHOSE POWERS ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH T HAT OF THE POWERS OF THE AO, ALSO DIDNT DISTURB THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE AO, IN THE MATTER. THE CIT(A),MERELY UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE AO, IN RESP ECT OF ADDITION, MADE ON THE GROUND OF G.P. THE CIT(A), ALSO DEEMED IT FIT NOT T O CONSIDER ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF MAKING ADDITION O F BOGUS PURCHASES, AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTIO N HERE THAT APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RESTRICTED TO SUBJE CT MATTER OF APPEAL AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS ARE PERMITTED TO BE RAISED. THE W ORDS PASS SUCH ORDER AS THE TRIBUNAL THINKS FIT U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT INCLUDE ALL POWERS EXCEPT POWERS OF ENHANCEMENT WHICH ARE CONFERRED ON FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH AND DEALING WITH THE GRO UND OF APPEAL, AS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED GP RATE AT RS.1.71%, ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.36,96,42,502/ -THE AO, OBSERVED IN PARA 7 17 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT GP RATE D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BETTER VIS--VIS THE LAST YEARS GP AT 1.54%, YET T HE FACT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE SAME COULD STILL BE MORE, HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT RESORTED TO BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. IT IS, FURTHER, OBSERVED BY THE AO T HAT GP RATE AT 1.71%, DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LOWER THAN MOST OF THE COMPARABLE CASES. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT NO DE TAILS, MUCH LESS THE SPECIFIC DETAILS AND BOOK-VERSIONS OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE AO, IN SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO MERELY MA DE A GENERAL AND PASSING ASSERTION, OF CERTAIN UNSPECIFIED COMPARABLE CASES. THEREFORE, THE LD. 'AR' RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE BOOK VERSIONS OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, WERE NEITHER RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOR CONFR ONTED BY THE AO, TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND A DOPTING THE ENHANCED GP RATE AT 2.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. 17. A PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, PASSED BY THE CIT(A) REVEALS THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE CIT(A), TWO COMPARABLE CASES WERE PR OVIDED, BY THE AO, TO THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY S.M.ALLOYS AND METALS AND P.D. ALL OYS PVT. LTD. ,TO JUSTIFY ENHANCEMENT, IN THE GP RATE, BY THE AO. THE CIT(A), HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING, AS TO THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF SUCH COMPAR ABLE CASES, PROVIDED AT HIS INSTANCE, BY THE AO TO THE APPELLANT, AT THE APPELL ATE STAGE. THE BOOK-VERSIONS OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, AS PROVIDED BY THE AO, AT APPELLATE STAGE, CIT(A), AFTER CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT, IS OF NO LEGAL CON SEQUENCES. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AO, HAS VIOLATED THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE , IN NOT CONFRONTING SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, IF ANY, TO THE APPELLANT WHICH WE RE IN THE MIND OF AO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING THE DECLARED GP RATE. THER E IS NO DISCERNIBILITY OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES AND APPLICATION OF MIND BY TH E AO, IN THE SAID ASSTT.ORDER. THE HON'BLE SUPREME, COURT, IN THE CAS E OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V CIT 26 ITR 775 (S.C) HELD THAT ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED TO BE CONFRONTED, WITH THE BOOK VERSION OF SUCH COMPARABL E CASES, BEFORE THE SAME ARE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT STATUTORY FUNCTION OF AO, BEING QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, IS GOADED AND GUIDED BY JUDICIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND, A CCORDINGLY, MUST CONFORM TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AS HELD IN A NUMBE R OF CASES. THE AO, MUST ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. THE AO, IS NOT COMPETENT TO RELY ON ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY FACT, OR MATERIAL, IN DRAWING INFERENCE WITHOUT FIRST POINTING OUT THE SA ME, TO THE ASSESSEE AND GIVING HIM REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF MEE TING THE CASE, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY MADE OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, THE BOOK- VERSIONS OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES WERE NOT CONFRONT ED TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DETAILS OF COMPARABLE CASES WERE PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, AT THE INSTANCE OF CIT(A ), AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE HIM. SUCH APPROACH OF THE AO, TO SUPPLEMENT CONCLUSIONS, ALREADY RECORDED IN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT STATUTORILY TENABLE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. FURTH ER, CIT(A), IS ALSO NOT COMPETENT TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, WH ICH WAS DENIED BY THE AO, BEFORE COMPLETING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT, IN VIEW OF THE SCHEME OF INCOME- TAX ACT AND UNDER GENERAL LAW. THUS, THERE IS FAILURE OF THE AO, TO CONFRONT THE COMPARABLE CASES, TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE USING THE SAME, FOR DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. 18. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING EVIDENCES, AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUN T ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS, WHICH HE HAS GATHERED. THE AO, IN THE PRESENT CASE ENHANCED GP RATE TO 2.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER VIS--VIS GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 1.71%, WITHOUT BRINGING COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN THE SHAPE OF PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, COMPARABLE CASES, IN THE SAME FIELD OR AN Y OTHER EVIDENCE, TO SUPPORT CONCLUSIONS. THE AO, IS COMPETENT TO ESTIMATE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BASED ON FAIRNESS AN D RELEVANT MATERIAL BROUGHT 8 ON RECORD. IN MAKING ADDITION, ON ESTIMATE BASIS, IT IS INEVITABLE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME GUESS WORK, BUT NOT THE PURE GUESS-WORK. T HE AO, WHILE MAKING THE BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT, NO DOUBT, SHOULD ARRIVE AT HIS CONCLUSION, PURELY ON A RATIONAL BASIS DULY SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT EVIDENC ES OR MATERIAL. 19. THE AO, WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.29.20.1 76/- ON ACCOUNT OF GP, OBSERVED, IN PARA 17.2 AS AS SUCH, TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.29,20,176/- HAS BEEN MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH I S DEEMED TO BE INCLUSIVE OF CENVAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,39,468/- AND INFLATION IN PURCHASES ETC. AS INDICATED ABOVE BY WORKING OUT THE NECESSARY ADDI TION OF RS.29,20,176/- ON THIS ACCOUNT) FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE ADDITIONS ARE B EING MADE. 19(I) A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E APPELLATE ORDER, REVEALS THAT COMPARABLE CASES OF SIMILAR TRADE WERE NEITHER DISCUSSED, NOR SPECIFIED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THESE COMPARABLE CAS ES WERE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE USING THE SAME FOR DRAWING ADVE RSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IN THE FORM OF GP AT 2.5%. THIS FACTUM ST AND ESTABLISHED FROM THE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) IN PARA 6 OF HIS ORDER. LD. C IT(A), IN PARA 6, HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE AO WAS REQUESTED T O PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE COMPARABLE CASES, RELIED UPON BY HER, TO ESTIMATE T HE GP RATE OF THE APPELLANT AT 2.5%. THE AO, SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF COMPARABL E CASES, VIDE HER LETTER DATED 10.8.2011, NAMELY S.M.ALLOYS & METALS, MANDI GOBINDGARH AND P.D.ALLOYS, MANDI GOBINDGARH. IN THIS CASE, ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3)/145(3) OF THE ACT, ON 29.12.2010. IN THIS SP ECIFIC CONTEXT, SUCH APPROACH OF THE AO, IN USING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCES, COLLECTE D BY WAY OF PRIVATE ENQUIRIES, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME T O THE ASSESSEE, AT THE ASSTT STAGE, VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF NATURAL JUS TICE, EMBEDDED IN THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT. THE AO, IS ENTITLED TO MAKE ENQU IRY AS DEEMED FIT, FROM ANY SOURCE, BUT BEFORE UTILIZING THE SAME, FOR THE PURP OSE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT, SUCH INFORMATION MUST BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE . THE AO, BEING QUASI- JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIV E AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, TO MEET ITS CASE. THIS PRINCIPLE I S ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN DHAKESHWARI COTTON MI LLS LTD. V CIT 26 ITR 775 (S.C),AND VASANT LAL V CIT 45 ITR 206 (S.C). HOWEVE R, THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF DHAKES HWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V CIT (SUPRA) WAS APPLIED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T, IN KISHANCHAND CHELLA RAM V CIT 125 ITR 713 (S.C), WHEREIN AN ASSESSMENT, BASED ON THE RESULT OF PRIVATE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, WAS SET ASIDE. THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V CIT (SU PRA) HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIOLATED CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF JUSTICE IN RE ACHING ITS CONCLUSION. FIRSTLY, IT DID NOT DISCLOSE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHAT INFORMATION HAD BEEN SUPPLIED TO IT BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. NEXT, IT DID NOT GIVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE COMPANY, TO REBUT THE MATERIAL, FURNISHED TO IT BY HIM AND LASTLY, IT DECLINED TO TAKE ALL THE MATERIAL THAT ASSESSEE WANTED TO PR ODUCE, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE. THE REASON IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT HAD A FAIR HEARING. ESTIMATE OF GROSS RATE OF PROFIT, ON SALES, BOTH BY THE ITO AND THE TRIBUNAL, SEEMS TO BE BASED ON SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES. IT IS, SOMEWH AT, SURPRISING THAT THE TRIBUNAL TOOK FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPART MENT, A STATEMENT OF GROSS- PROFIT RATES OF OTHER COTTON MILLS, WITHOUT SHOWING THAT STATEMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY, TO SHOW THAT STATEMENT HAD NO RELEVANCY, WHAT-SO-EVER TO THE CASE OF THE MILL IN QUESTION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION WAS SET ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, ON THE GROUND OF NON-PROVIDING OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE, WHILE MAKING ESTIMATE OF GP ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS, FURTHER, ADDED THAT ITO ESTIMATED THE GP ON SALES, AT 40% AND TRIBUNAL REDUCED IT TO 35%, BY FOLLOWING THE INFORMATION SUP PLIED BY THE LD. 'DR'. EVEN, 9 IN SUCH A CASE, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT SET ASIDE TH E ASSESSMENT AS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE AO, HAS MERELY RECORDED PURELY VAGUE AND GENERAL OBSERVATION OF SU CH COMPARABLE CASES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE, ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN UNSP ECIFIED COMPARABLE CASES, WHICH WERE NOT CONFRONTED, TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT. LD. 'AR', REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSION F ILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE CIT(A), TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, IN THE MATTER. A PERUSAL OF SUCH SUBMISSION, AS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A), IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 5 , REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT PLACED RELIANCE, ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS : I) GANGA RAM BAL MOKAND V CIT (1937) 5 ITR 464 (LAH ) II) SHRI S.VEERAIH REDIAR V CIT (1960) 38 ITR 152 ( KER) III) CIT V MAHESH CHAND (1939) 199 ITR 247 (ALL) IV) SETH GURMUKH SINGH V CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 (LAH ) V) JOSEPH THOMAS & BROS. V CIT (1968) 62 ITR 528 (A P) VI) INTERNATIONAL FOREST CO. V CIT 101 ITR 72 (J&K) 19(II) IN SUCH CASE LAWS, RELIED UPON BY THE AP PELLANT, BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT IS HELD THAT ESTIMATION CANNOT BE MADE, ON THE BASI S OF MERE SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND IMAGINATION. THE ESTIMATE IS REQUI RED TO BE BASED, ON SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND MUST HAVE NEXUS THERETO. IT I S, FURTHER, HELD IN SUCH CASES THAT MATERIAL GATHERED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS IT IS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENHANCED GP RATE AT 2.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER, HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AO, AFTER REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE AO, NEVER PROVID ED ANY OPPORTUNITY, TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, IN QUEST ION, IN THE FORM OF PROVIDING THE BOOK VERSIONS OF THE COMPARABLE CASES, ON WHICH HIGHER GP RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO, IS FOUNDED. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE AO, WHO IS QUASI- JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD C ONSCIENCE. 20. AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, IT IS STATUTORILY INCUMBENT UPON THE AO, TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT, IN TH E MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, WI TH HEAD-NOTE AS BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT, CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE AO, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH HE HAS GATHERED, SHALL, AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD, MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT AND DEPARTMENT THE SUM , PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 145 OF THE ACT, CLEARLY REFLECT T HE LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT AO, CANNOT MAKE ASSESSMENT, WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER AN D REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THE FORM OF CONFRONTING THE MAT ERIAL, WHICH THE AO INTENDS TO USE, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SUCH STATUTORY LEGISLAT IVE INTENT, IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE GENERAL RULE OF LAW AND THE UNIVERSALLY AC KNOWLEDGED CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WHEREIN, INTER-ALIA, IT IS EMBODIE D THAT NO-ONE CAN BE CONDEMNED UN-HEARD. THE ESTIMATE OF GP OR INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE, IS REQUIRED TO BE FOUNDED ON MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE AND NOT ON AN Y IRRELEVANT MATERIAL CONSIDERATION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THE AO, I S COMPETENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BETTER EVIDENCE, FALL BACK ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE LAST PRECEDING YEAR, AS BEST GUIDE, EVEN IF THAT ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN A B EST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE AO, IGNORED PREVIOUS YEARS RESULT, IN THIS CASE. THE AO, ALSO OBSERVED IN PARA 17 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT TH E CURRENT YEARS GP RATE AT 1.71% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.36,96,42,502/- IS BETTER VIS--VIS THE GP RATE OF 1.54%, SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE LAST YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AO, 10 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY THE BOOK-VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, AS SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR VIS--VIS GP SHOWN IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. 21. THE AO, OBSERVED THAT IT IS WELL KNOWN FACT T HAT DUTY, IF SCRAP FROM DEALERS DOING UNACCOUNTED TRADING, IS ALWAYS AVAILA BLE AT CHEAPER RATE IN THE MARKET. THE AO, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE L ARGE NUMBER OF VARIABLES, LIKE BURNING LOSS, PRODUCE OF BY-PRODUCTS AND OTHER CONSUMABLES, INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING, AGAINST WHICH INFLATE D OR BOGUS PURCHASES CAN EASILY BE ADJUSTED. HOWEVER, SUCH GENERAL OBSERVAT IONS MADE BY THE AO, REMAINS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATE RIAL, BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE AO, FURTHER, GAVE AN EXAMPLE THAT BURNING LOSS IN THIS TYPE OF MANUFACTURING CAN BE CLAIMED AND JUSTIFIED, WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMIT (SAY 2% TO 5%). IN MAJORITY OF CASES, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, LIK E QUALITY OF RAW MATERIAL, CONDITIONS OF FURNACE ETC., TO HAVE A LARGE MANUFAC TURING UNIT, SLIGHT VARIATION AFFECTS PROFITABILITY IN A BIG WAY. THE AO, FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, BURNING LOSS AT 4.32% IS RATHER HIGHER THAN T HE BURNING LOSS, NORMALLY CLAIMED BY THE COMPARABLE CASES. THE AO, FAILS TO B RING ANY COMPARABLE CASES, ON THE ISSUE OF BURNING LOSS, TO SUPPORT HER OBSERV ATIONS, TREATING THE BURNING LOSS, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AT 4.32%, AS HIGHER. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO, THAT BURNING LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON HIGHER SIDE, CONTRADICTS THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO THAT PERMISSIBLE BUR NING LOSS RANGES BETWEEN 2 TO 5%, IN SUCH FIELD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, BURNING LOSS HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS OBSERVED BY THE AO, AT 4.32%, WHICH IS IN THE PERMI SSIBLE LIMITS, AS RECORDED BY THE AO I.E. 2% TO 5% IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I N VIEW OF THIS, THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO, WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE SAME BY RELEVANT MATERIAL, CANNOT STRENGTH THE CASE OF ADOPTION OF H IGHER GP AT 2.5%. 22. THE AO, FURTHER, OBSERVED THAT THE FACT REMAINS THAT ASSESSEE ACTUALLY DERIVED THE BENEFIT, THE FIRST DAY IT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD THE GOODS, AFTER BOOKING BOGUS PURCHASES AND CONSEQUENTLY, BOGUS CEN VET CREDIT, AMOUNTING TO RS.13,39,468/-. THE ADDITION, MADE BY THE AO, IN T HIS RESPECT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A).THE CIT(A), OBSERVED THAT THE AO, IN THIS REGARD HAS OBSERVED, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT REVERSAL OF ENTRIES, IN E XCISE RECORD, DURING THE YEAR OR NEXT, WOULD NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY DERIVED THE BENEFIT, ON THE FIRST DAY IT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD THE GOODS , AFTER BOOKING THE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE CIT(A), GAVE A FINDING THAT THE CON CLUSION OF THE AO IS NOT TENABLE, AS THE AMOUNT OF CENVET CREDIT OF RS.13,39 ,468/- HAD NOT BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THERE FORE, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE WORKING OF PROFITABILITY. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) DELE TED THE SAID ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THIS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE BOGUS CENVET CREDIT HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, IT WOULD NOT HA VE ANY IMPACT, ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, AS HELD BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE PERCEPTION OF THE AO THAT PROFIT WOULD GO UP BY THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT OF BOGUS CENVET CREDIT, DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT TENA BLE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT- SITUATION OF THE CASE AND FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 23. THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUBSEQUEN T ASSESSMENT, UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ARE TWO DISTINCT AN D SEPARATE PROCESSES. THE ASSESSMENT, AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, MU ST CONFORM TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND GENERAL LAW IN THE MATTER . NO ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT AND CREDIBLE MATERIAL, HAVING NEXUS TO THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME BY THE AO. ONCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED, THEN PROFIT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF PROPER MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD. THERE MUST BE IN EXISTENCE RELEVANT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE, BEIN G STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 143 & 144 OF THE ACT, FOR THE AO T O MAKE ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THIS PRINCIPLE OF LAW, IN THE MATTER IS FAI RLY AND RIGHTLY STATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI CO TTON MILLS (SUPRA), DHIRAJ 11 LAL GIRDHARI LAL V CIT 26 ITR 736 (S.C), AND CIT V DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL 87 ITR 349 (S.C). THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN LAID DO WN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.M.ESUFALI ABDULALI (SUPRA). THE METHOD TO BE ADOPTED BY THE AO, MUST BE WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY NEARER TO THE TRUTH, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSI ONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT CIT(A), HAS IGNORED THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE CIT(A), HAS ATTEMPTED TO COMPENSATE THE LACK OF COMPLETE OPPORT UNITY, REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE AO, BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESS MENT, IN QUESTION. THIS POST-FACTO PROVIDING OF OPPORTUNITY, IN THE SHAPE O F COMPARABLE CASES BY THE CIT(A), IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WOU LD NOT CURE THE FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY THE AO . THE AO, HAD ALREADY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, WITHOUT SPECIFYING AND DI SCUSSING COMPARABLE CASES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WITHOUT PROVIDING DETAI L OF SUCH CASES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A FACT-SITUATION, IT IS NOT POSS IBLE TO DISCOVER THE MENTAL STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE AO, WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT, AS T O WHICH RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT FACTORS LED TO ADOPT THE GP AT HIGHER PE RCENTAGE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT PAST RECORDS IS A RELEVANT FACTOR, IN ESTIMATI NG INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHERE NO BETTER MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE, PROFITS CAN BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF ANOTHER PERSONS BUSINESS OF SIMILAR KIND, IN THE S AME AREA IN AN EARLIER YEAR. HOWEVER, SUCH DETAILS OF COMPARABLE CASES, IS REQUI RED TO BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF HIGHER GP IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUCH FAILURE CANNOT BE COMPENSATED BY AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY BY CIT(A), AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE STAGE, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 24(I) IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE BOOK-VERSION OF COMPARABLE CASES WERE NEITHER CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT NOR INCORP ORATED OR DISCUSSED IN THE ASSTT.ORDER IN QUESTION. AT THE INSTANCE OF CIT(A) , AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, AO, FURNISHED DETAILS OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES. IN THI S SPECIFIC CONTEXT, THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TIN BOX C O. VS CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (S.C) IS UNAMBIGUOUS AND CLEAR. THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT, HELD THAT LACK OF OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO, CANNOT BE RECTIF IED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BY GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY. THE RIGHT I S FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E, CANNOT BE MADE GOOD IN APPEAL. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD AS HELD, R EVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THAT ONCE THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT I NCOME-TAX OFFICER, HAD NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD, THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PLACED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS REALLY OF NO CONSEQUENCE, FOR IT WAS T HE ASSTT. ORDER THAT COUNTED : THAT ORDER HAD TO BE MADE AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS V CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT AO MUST OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHILE MAKING THE ASSES SMENT. THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A MERE IDLE FORMALITY. WHERE THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON ARE NOT ENCLOSED IN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY V VIJAY KUMAR SHARM A (2001) 249 ITR 554 (S.C). HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE UPHELD. 25. IN PARA 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, CIT(A) REQUESTED THE AO, TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE COMPARABLE CASES, AS RELIED UPON BY HER, TO ESTIMATE GP RATE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AT 2.5%. ACCORDINGLY, AO SUBM ITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 18.08.2011, THAT THERE WAS FALL IN GP RATE, FROM 1. 82% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, TO 1.60%, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IN T HE APPELLANTS CASE. SUCH FINDING OF THE AO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A), IN PARA 6 OF THE APPELLATE 12 ORDER. HOWEVER, A BARE PERUSAL OF PARA 17 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT AO CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED AND RECORDED THEREIN, THE FACTUM THAT GP RATE AT 1.71%, DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS BETTER THAN ITS PREVIOUS YEARS GP RATE, DECLARED AT 1.54%. IN VIEW OF THIS, FINDINGS OF TH E AO ARE SELF-CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE. 25(I) IN PARA 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE APPEL LANT FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS, SUPPORTING HIS CASE OF HIGHER GP RATE THAN THE GP RATE SHOWN, IN THE TWO COMPARABLE CASES, PROVIDED BY THE AO, TO TH E APPELLANT FOR COMMENTS, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE SUBMISSION CONTAINS DET AILED JUSTIFICATION, SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL DETAILS AND CASE-LAWS TO ESTAB LISH THE APPELLANTS CASE, IN TERMS OF GP RATE VIS--VIS THE BOOK-VERSION OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES. IN PARA 8 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, LD. CIT(A), ON APPRECIATI ON OF SUCH SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE ISSUE O F ITS GP RATE VIS--VIS THE GP RATE OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, FOUND THE EXPLANATI ON AND CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT, AS QUITE PLAUSIBLE. THUS, THE APPELLANT S CLAIM THAT GP RATE RELIED UPON BY THE AO, WERE NOT COMPARABLE ONE, WAS FOUND QUITE PLAUSIBLE BY THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY, THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, THAT GP RATE, RELIED UPON BY THE AO, IS NOT CORRECT. IN THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH FINDINGS, IT IS IN-COMPREHENSIBL E HOW THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION, ON THE GROUND OF GP RATE APPLIED BY T HE AO, BASED ON THE BOOK- VERSION OF TWO COMPARABLE CASES. THEREFORE, UPHOLDI NG OF THE ADDITION BY THE CIT(A), BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE BOOK-VERSION OF TWO COMPARABLE CASES, RUNS CONTRARY TO HIS FINDINGS, ON THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE GP RATE, RELIED UPON BY THE AO, WERE NOT COMPARABLE, AS QUITE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), UPHOLDING THE ADD ITION, ON THE SAME BASIS, WHICH WAS FOUND BY THE CIT(A), AS FACTUALLY NOT TEN ABLE, RENDERS HIS FINDINGS, UNTENABLE AND SELF-CONTRADICTORY IN NATURE. THE CI T(A), CANNOT JUDICIALLY UPHELD THE ADDITION ON THE FULCRUM OF UNTENABLE FOU NDATION OF BOOK-VERSION OF G.P. RATE OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, WHICH WERE FOUN D BY HIM, AS INCOMPARABLE ONE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ONLY LIKE MUST BE COMPAR ED WITH LIKE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAWING MEANINGFUL, RATIONAL AND VALID CONCLUSIO NS, WHICH SHOULD, FURTHER, BE SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT MATERIAL AND COGENT EVIDEN CES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD, RELEVANT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES OR MATERIAL, TO SUPPORT HIS FINDINGS, ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE APPELLANT, HAD FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), COMPARATIVE CHART OF GP RA TE OF ITS CONCERN AND THAT OF THE COMPARABLE CASES. SIMILARLY, THE APPELLANT H AS FILED, JUSTIFICATION, IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE RATES, MADE BY THE APPELLANT FR OM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) AND OTHER PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A), HAS FAILED TO R EBUT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE MATTER. IT IS, PERTINENT TO MENTIONED HERE THAT THE CIT(A), DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.13,39,468/-, ON THE GROU ND OF REVERSAL OF CENVET CREDIT ENTRIES BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO, MADE OBSE RVATION IN THIS REGARD, THAT REVERSAL OF ENTRIES, IN EXCISE RECORDS, WOULD NOT A LTER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY DERIVED BENEFIT, ON THE FIRST DAY, IT MANU FACTURED AND SOLD THE GOODS, AFTER BOOKING THE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE CIT(A), CLE ARLY DISAGREED WITH SUCH CONCLUSIONS OF THE AO, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF CENVET CREDIT HAD NOT BEEN DEBITED, TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY T HE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, HELD THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT WORKING OF PROFITABILI TY. FURTHER, BOTH LD. CIT(A), AND THE AO, FAILED TO PRIMA-FACIE PROVE THAT BURNIN G LOSS, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, LED TO UNDER-STATEMENT OF GP. THE AO, RAT HER, TREATED THE BURNING LOSS, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 4.2%, AS WITHIN TH E SPECIFIED LIMIT, OF 2% TO 5%, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN PARA 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT, IN THE SAME PARA, THE AO FOUND SUCH CLAIM OF BURNIN G LOSS OF THE APPELLANT, AT 4.32% HIGHER THAN THE BURNING LOSS, ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE CASES. HOWEVER, THE AO, FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD, INSTANC ES OF SUCH COMPARABLE CASES, ESTABLISHING THE CONCLUSION OF HIGHER BURNIN G LOSS, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), IN THE MATTER CANNOT BE 13 SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AN A DDITION OF RS.4 LACS BE SUSTAINED, WITH A VIEW TO COVER UP LEAKAGE OF REVEN UE AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 7. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENT ICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASO NING WE UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER T O MEET THE END OF JUSTICE AND TO COVER THE LEAKAGE OF REVENUE WE UPHO LD THE ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS GROUN D NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY ASS ESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLO WED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,22,011/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS CLAIM OF CENVAT CREDIT MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE ON THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE HELD TO BE BOGUS. WE FIND THA T IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M /S GIAN CASTINGS (P) LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.9.2012 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEAL S) AND DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: 34(I) WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE AO, MADE AN ADDITION OF R S.13,39,468/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CENVET CREDIT AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. C IT(A) HAS RECORDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH CENVET CREDIT HAS BEEN REVERSED IN THE EXCISE RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. HOW EVER, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT FACT WOULD REMAIN THAT ASSESSEE ACTUAL LY DERIVED BENEFIT ON THE FIRST DAY, IT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD GOODS AFTER TAK ING BOGUS PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, CLAIM OF CENVET, ON BOGUS PURCHASES RE PRESENT ASSESSEE'S SUPPRESSED INCOME AND AS SUCH, ADDITION HAS BEEN WO RKED OUT TO RS.13,39,468/-. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROC EEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION O N THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF CENVET CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BY THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT AFFECT TH E WORKING OF PROFITABILITY. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), AS CONTAINED IN PARA 8, HAV E BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE, IN THIS ORDER. 14 33(II) THE FACT OF REVERSAL OF THE IMPUGNED CENVET CREDIT, IN THE EXCISE RECORDS OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAINS UNDISPUTED. REVERSAL OF SUCH ENTRY IN EXCISE RECORD, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED IN VACUUM. THE BENEFIT, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED BY THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED BY REVERSAL OF SUCH ENTRIES. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND CON SEQUENTLY, GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, IS DISMISSED. 9. IN VIEW OF SIMILAR ISSUE BEING DECIDED BY THE TR IBUNAL WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 21 ST JANUARY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH J