M/s J.S. Khalsa Steels (P) Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh V. Addl. CIT, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 613/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5177 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 613/CHD/2014 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S J.S.KHALSA STEELS (P) LTD., VS. THE A DDL.CIT, VILLAGE KUMBH, MANDI GOBINDGARH RANGE, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN NO. AAACJ4221B & ITA NO. 615/CHD/2014 ASSESSME NT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S ROSHA ALLOYS (P) LTD., VS. THE DCIT, VILLAGE TOORAN, CIRCLE, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN NO. AACCR5503N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : NONE (ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION) DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.05.2017 ORDER IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF THE PARTIES THAT IN BOTH T HE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, ISSUES RAISED ARE IDENTICAL. ACCORDINGLY , FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 26/03/2014 OF CIT(A) PATIALA PERTAINING TO 200809 ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ASSAILED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING THE IDENTICAL GROUND OF WRONGFUL REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; ENHANCEMENT OF GP R ATE; INFLATED PURCHASES ETC. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE BY SR. D.R SH. S.K. MITTAL STATING THAT DUE TO SOME PERSONAL URGENT AFFAIR, HE WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND. FOR THE RECORD IDENTICAL ADJO URNMENT REQUEST HAS BEEN MOVED IN EACH OF THE APPEALS FIXED BEFORE SMC BENCH YESTERDA Y AND TODAY ALSO, NO ONE HAS CARED TO BE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE FOR EV EN SEEKING A DATE. THE LD. AR 2 OBJECTED TO THE GRANT OF ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED. CONSIDERING THE RECORD, THE ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTE D AND THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX- PATE QUA THE REVENUE RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFTER HEA RING THE LD. AR. 3. MR. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, INVITING ATTENTION TO THE O RDER DATED 25/01/2017 OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SURYA STEEL IND USTRIES, MANDI GOBINDGARH VS DCIT MANDI GOBINDGARH & OTHERS SUBMITTED THAT THE I SSUES ARE IDENTICAL. THE DEPARTMENT IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ALSO HAD CONSI DERED THE PURCHASES MADE BY VARIOUS CONCERNS FROM M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MAND I GOBINDGARH AS BOGUS. RELIANCE HAD BEEN PLACED UPON REPORT FROM CENTRAL EXCISE AUT HORITIES WHICH INTIMATED THAT THE SAID CONCERN WAS INDULGING IN NEFARIOUS TRADING ACT IVITIES ONLY ON PAPER AS THEY WERE FOUND TO BE PASSING ON CENVAT CREDIT FRAUDULENTLY W ITHOUT ACTUAL RECEIPT, DISPATCH AND STORAGE OF EXCISABLE GOODS. RELYING UPON THE AFORE SAID ORDER OF THE ITA T ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACTS AS FOUND RECORDED IN PARAG RAPH 5 PAGE 6 OF THE SAID ORDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, THE ITAT HAD RESTORED SIMILAR ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS ARE SO UGHT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AS THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS RELYING UPON THE FACTS OF ROHIT (ISPAT) WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE AFORESAID CASES OF ALMOST 12 IDENTICAL ASSESSEES. 4. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ITA 613/CHD/2014, THE RELEVANT FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH 5 TO 7 AND THE ADDITION CONSEQUENTLY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FACTS SET OUT IN PARA 20 OF HIS ORD ER WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT IN THE GROUP OF CASES CITED. SIMILARLY IN ITA 615/CHD/ 2014, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28/12/20 10 HAS BEEN GUIDED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF PIG IRON FROM M/ S M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) MANDI GOBINDGARH AND TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THERE W AS A REPORT FROM CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE THOROUGH RE GIONAL ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL, 3 CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF ROHIT ISPAT(INDIA),MGG IN WHICH IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA). PROP. SHRI SURESH YADAV WAS INDULGIN G IN NEFARIOUS TRADING ACTIVITIES ONLY ON PAPER AS THEY WERE FOUND TO BE PASSING ON CENVAT CREDIT FRAUDULENTLY WITHOUT ACTUAL RECEIPT, DISPATCH AND STORAGE OF EXCISABLE GOODS. T HE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE FURNACE UNITS FOUND TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES OF PIG IRON FROM ROHIT ISPAT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES, FOLL OWING THE PRECEDENT, THE ISSUES MAY BE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH IDENTICAL DI RECTIONS. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE FOU NDATIONAL FACT OF THE ADDITION IS THE FINDING IN THE CASE OF M/S ROHIT ISPAT, WHICH WAS CONSIDERE D TO BE A PAPER ENTITY INDULGING IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES. THE GIST OF THE FINDINGS OF THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES VIEW CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECORD IS AS UNDER :. GIST OF THE FINDINGS BY EXCISE AUTHORITY (I) ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), MGG PROP. SHRI SURESH YADA V, HAD OBTAINED CENTRAL EXCISE REGISTRATION AS A REGISTERED DEALER FRAUDULE NTLY BY SUBMITTING A FAKE AND BOGUS RENT DEED. HIS INTENTION WAS AB-INTIO MALAFID E AS IT HAD TAKEN THE CENTRAL EXCISE REGISTRATION WITH A SINGLE MOTIVE OF MISUSIN G THE SAME TO DUPE THE EXCHEQUER BY INDULGING IN PAPER TRANSACTION OF CENV ALABLE INVOICES. (II) IT NEITHER EXISTED OR CONDUCTED ANY BUSINESS F ROM THE PREMISES FOR WHICH REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED TO HIM AND THE SAID PREMIS ES HAD NEVER BEEN LET OUT BY ANY OF THE THREE RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF THE GODOWN DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. (III) M/S ROHIT ISPAT, DID NOT HAVE ANY GODOWN TO S TORE THE EXCISABLE GOODS AND HAD. NO OFFICE TO KEEP THE RECORDS. IT WAS ISSUING THE. IN VOICES ONLY FROM THE COMPUTER INSTALLED AT THE RESIDENCE OF SH. SURESH YADAV, PRO P. WITHOUT ACTUAL RECEIPT / STORAGE /DISPATCH OF PIG IRON, (IV) THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF M/S ROHIT ISPA T (INDIA) DATED 20.12.2006 WAS CANCELLED RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 20.12.2006 BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2008. THUS, THE INVOICES ISSUED BY THE ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) ARE INVALID DOCUMENTS ON WHICH CENVAT CREDIT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. V) SH. SURESH YADAV IN HIS STATEMENTS DATED 03 .02.2008 GIVEN BEFORE EXCISE AUTHORITIES HAD CLEARLY CONFESSED TO HAVE INDULGED IN PAPER TRANSACTIONS ONLY WITHOUT ACTUAL RECEIPT / STORAGE / DISPATCH OF PIG IRON. HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT AN ACTUAL TRADER BUT INDULGED IN ISSUANCE OF INVOICES ONLY WHENEVER THERE WAS DEMAND OF BILLS. VI) THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF SH. SURESH YADAV, PRO P, OF THE SAID FIRM WAS POOR. HE DID NOT HAVE HUGE CAPITAL ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY A NY BUSINESS CONCERN TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AT SUCH A LARGE SCALE. BOTH THE SUPPLIERS NAMELY M/S IDCOL, KEONJHAR, ORFSSA AND AISPL, GOA, THE MANUFACTURERS OF PIG IRO N FROM WHOM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES DELIVERED TH E GOODS AGAINST ADVANCE 4 PAYMENTS ONLY, BUT SH. SURESH YADAV WAS INCAPABLE O F RAISING HUGE AMOUNT RUNNING INTO CRORES OF RUPEES FOR BUSINESS TO PURCHASE THE PIG IRON. FURTHER HE DID NOT HAVE THE TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO HANDLE HUGE CONSIGNMENTS OF PIG IRON AND THAT TOO AT PLACES AWAY FROM MANDI GOBINDGARH I.E. AT. B ATALA AND DHANDARI KALAN. IT DID NOT HAVE A SINGLE EMPLOYEE LIKE CLERKS, CHOWKIDARS, ACC OUNTANTS ETC. IT IMPLIES THAT THERE WERE FORCES BEHIND THE ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA.) WHICH W ERE USING IT, TO ACTUALLY OBTAIN AND CONSUME PIG IRON AT BATALA TRY CONSIGNING THE SAME IN THE NAME OF THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) FURTHER ISSUING CENVATABLE INVOICES BY INDU LGING IN PAPER TRANSACTIONS ONLY. SH, YADAV DENIED HAVING ANY ACTIVE ROLE IN RUNNING OF THE ROHIT ISPAT AND NAMED SH. SUBASH AS THE PERSON WHO WAS RUNNING AND MANAGING T HE FIRM BY PAYING HIM RS.15,000/-PER MONTH. SHRI JAGDISH AGGARWAI OF BHAR AI FOUNDARYRNAN ASSOCIATION (BFA), BATALA ALSO STATED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW SH, SURESH YADAV AS HE HAD DEALT ONLY WITH SH. SUBASH BOTH REGARDING THE BOOKING OF ORDER S FOR THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA). FURTHER., THE FILLING OF DEPOSIT FORMS AND CHEQUES OF DIFFERENT PARTIES ISSUED ARE III THE HANDWRITING OF SH. SUBHASH, CONFIRMS THAT SH. SUBHA SH WAS ACTUALLY RUNNING ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), THUS INVOLVEMENT OF SH. SUBASH IN TH E ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) FIRM IS CONFIRMED. SH. SUBASH CONFESSED THAT BFA WAS RUNNIN G AND MANAGING THE ENTIRE SHOW. (VII) BFA WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ALL THESE TRANSA CTION OF PIG IRON CONDUCTED BY THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) AND IT WAS BFA THAT HAD PLACED THE PURCHASE ORDERS WITH BIPL IN RESPECT OF PIG. IRON PROCURED FROM AISPL. I T IS AGAIN BFA WHICH HAD PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF MS ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) AS THE CONSIG NEE OF THE GOODS IN ITS FAX MESSAGES TO AISPSL. TOKEN MONEY OF RS.10 LACS IN RE SPECT OF THE ROHIT ISPAT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY BFA, WHICH WAS TO BE REFUNDED BY AISPL TO BFA ON CLEARANCE OF THEIR DUES BY THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT WITH AISPL. IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ORDER TO SUPPLIERS WERE ISSUED BY USING PRE SIGNED BLANK LET TER HEADS OF M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA)'. (VIII) AS PER LIST OF 20 MEMBERS OF BFA PROVIDED BY SH. JAGDISH AGGARWAL, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT WAS NOT MEMBER OF BFA. (IX) DELIVER)' OF MOST OF THE CONSIGNMENTS OF PIG I RON HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE M/'S ROHIT ISPAT AT PLACES OTHER THAN MANDI GOBINDGARH I .E. AT BATALA / DHANDHARI KALAN WHEREAS THEY HAD ISSUED CENVATTABLE INVOICES TO THE FURNACE UNITS OF MANDI GOBINDGARH. IF ROHIT ISPAT WAS TO SELL PIG IRON TO FURNACE UNITS OF MANDI GOBINDGARH WHY WOULD IT PAY EXTRA FREIGHT TO RAILWAY TO BATALA / DHANDARI KALAN AND THEN TO THE TRANSPORTERS FROM BATALA / DHANDARI KALAN TO MANDI GOBINDGARH. FURTHER, ROHIT ISPAT DID NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE- TO HA NDLE HUGE CONSIGNMENTS AT BATALA / DHANDARI KALAN / MANDI GOBINDGARH. (X) BATALA IS A HUB OF FOUNDRY INDUSTRY FAMOUS ALL OVER INDIA AND PIG IRON IS THE MAIN RAW MATERIAL FOR FOUNDRY INDUSTRY. FURTHER, AL L THE CONSIGNMENTS OF PIG IRON DISPATCHED BY IDCOL AND AISPL WERE OF FOUNDRY GRADE FIT FOR USE IN FOUNDRY INDUSTRY ONLY. THERE APPEARS TO BE A SYSTEMATIC DIV ERSION OF PIG IRON TO FOUNDRY INDUSTRY OF BATALA WITHOUT INVOICES ARID DIVERSION OF CENVAT CREDIT ON THE BASIS OF INVOICES ISSUED BY THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT TO THE FURNA CE UNITS OF MANDI GOBINDGARH. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE FOUNDRY UNITS OF BATALA H AD RECEIVED AND CONSUMED THE CONSIGNMENTS OF PIG IRON WITHOUT ACCOUNTING IN THEI R RECORDS AND FINISHED GOODS SO MANUFACTURED TOO HAD BEEN CLEARED CLANDESTINELY BY THEM WITHOUT ACCOUNTING IN THEIR RECORDS ENABLING THEM TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CENTRAL EXCISE, SSI EXEMPTION LIMIT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE FURNACE UNITS SEEM TO HAVE TO PR OCURE EON-DUTY PAID SCRAP FROM THE OPEN MARKET AND COVERED UP THE SAME BY REC EIVING CENVATABLE INVOICES FROM THE ROHIT ISPAT AND OTHER SIMILAR SOURCES. (XI) NONE OF THE FURNACE UNITS THAT HAD AVAILED THE CENVAT CREDIT ON THE INVOICES ISSUED BY THE ROHIT ISPAT, HAD VERIFIED THE ADDRESS AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT. THEY EVEN-DID NOT KNOW THE NAME OF THE PROP. FURTHER, THEY COULD NOT EVEN PROVIDE THE TELEPHONE NOS. OF THE SAID M/S ROH IT ISPAT .(INDIA). THEY MERELY 5 SHIFTED THE RESPONSIBILITY ON SOME 'UNKNOWN BROKERS ' BY SAYING THAT THE DEAL WERE STRUCK THROUGH BROKERS WHOSE NAMES AND ADDRESSES-TH EY COULD NOT RECOLLECT. (XII) NONE OF THE FURNACE UNITS COULD TELL THE GRAD E AND COMPOSITION OF THE PIG IRON RECEIVED BY THEM FROM THE ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA). NONE OF THEM HAD MAINTAINED SEPARATE STOCK ACCOUNT OF THE PIG IRON AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THEM IN THEIR RAW MATERIAL REGISTER ALONGWITH THE DUTY PAID SCRAP . THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DONE DELIBERATELY TO AVOID DETECTION BY THE LAW ENFORCIN G AGENCIES AND APPEARS TO BE A MODUS OPERANDI FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PIG IRON WITH NO N-DUTY PAID SCRAP, IN WHICH CENVATABLE INVOICES OF PIG IRON WERE OBTAINED FROM ROHIT ISPAT BUT ACTUALLY NON-DUTY PAID SCRAP WAS CONSUMED, AS DISCUSSED SUPRA PIG IRO N APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN USED IN FOUNDRY 'INDUSTRY AT BATAIA. (XIII) PIG IRON IS CLASSIFIED UNDER CHAPTER HEADING 72,01 AND MELTING SCRAP UNDER CHAPTER HEADING 72.04. PIG IRON IS NOT A MELTING SC RAP BUT A DIFFERENT COMMODITY IN ITSELF. PIG IRON PELLETS ARE INPUTS FOR THE FOUNDRY INDUSTRY AS STEEL INGOTS ARE INPUTS OF THE ROLLING MILLS. THUS PIG IRON AND MELTING SCRAP CAN NOT BE CLUBBED TOGETHER. ON BEING ASKED AS TO WHY SEPARATE ACCOUNT IN RESPECT O F PIG IRON HAD NOT BEEN MAINTAINED; THE MOST COMMON REPLY BY THE FURNACE UN ITS WAS THAT THEY HAD NOT MADE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO AND FOR THEM PIG IR ON AND SCRAP WERE ONE AND THE SAME THING. (XIV) (XIV) THE M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) HAD GIVEN H EAVY DISCOUNTS TOTALING, RS.9,93,949/- TO THE FURNACE UNITS, DESPITE SELLING PIG IRON AT HEAVY LOSSES, IN ADDITION TO THE EXPENSES INVOLVED IN TRANSPORTATION BY ROAD, LOADING /UNLOADING AND HANDLING CHARGES, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE GENUI NE, FT IS POSSIBLE ONLY REGARDING PAPER TRANSACTIONS AS THERE IS NO ACTUAL LOSS ON PA SSING OF DISCOUNTS INVOLVED AND IT IS ONLY IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS . (XV) M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) WAS HAVING AN OUTSTA NDING AMOUNT OF RS.1,66,79,761/- AGAINST 16 FURNACE UNITS, YET IT HAD TAKEN NO STEP: ; TO RECOVER THE SAME ALONGWITH INTEREST FROM THE DEFAULTERS. THIS IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAPER TRANSACTIONS AS NO GENUINE TRADER CAN AFFORD TO KEEP PAYMENTS OUTST ANDING FOR SUCH ALONG PERIOD. (XVI) ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) HAD ISSUED PARALLEL INVOI CE NO. 47 TO TWO DIFFERENT UNITS; THIS IS POSSIBLE ONLY-REGARDING PAPER TRANSACTIONS:. HAD TH E GOODS ACTUALLY BEEN DELIVERED WITH THE INVOICE, SUCH GLARING MISTAKE COULD HAVE N EVER OCCURRED. (XVII) BOTH SLI. SUBHASH.AND SH. SURESH YADAV WE RE ARRESTED BY THE POLICE ON THE BASIS OF THE FIR LODGED AGAINST THEM AND THEY REMAI NED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 12 . 10.07 TO 23 . 11.07 IN CENTRAL JAIL, NABHA AS THEY WERE FOUND CON DUCTING FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE PUNJAB SALES TAX ICC BARRI ER BY SHOWING BOGUS EXPORT OF GOODS OUT OF PUNJAB STATE, THIS IS FURTHER SUBSTANT IATED BY THE RECOVERY OF A STAMPING MACHINE OF PUNJAB SALE TAX BARRIER, BALONG I AND 19 SALE INVOICES OF M/S PATIALA STRIPS (P) LTD., FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. SUBASH. (XVIII) THE ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) HAD -DELIBERATELY N OT PRODUCED ITS RECORDS BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND HAD FALSELY ALLEGED THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY BE THE SALE TAX / POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH WAS DENI ED BY BOTH THE DEPARTMENTS. 5.1. IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY AS A RESULT OF THESE FACT S, THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED AND IDENTICAL ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND 6 THAT IDENTICAL FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH IN THE AFORESAID GROUP OF APPEALS AS IS DISCUSSED IN THE C ONSOLIDATED ORDER AT PAGES 8 TO 11. IT IS SEEN THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT S OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH WAS PLEASED TO REST ORE THE ISSUES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODU CED FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT : 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING HIS OWN ENQUIRY RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND MADE THE ADDITIONS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CUSTOM EXCISE AND SERVICES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D ECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT SALES BY M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH WERE GENUINE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ONL Y BASIS FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THE ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS AS SESSING OFFICER MAY BE DELETED. 13. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REJ ECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE ITAT VIDE O RDER DATED 12.9.2012 IN ITA NO.451/CHD/201T. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS P. LIMITED, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATI ALA WHEREIN IN PARAS 10 AND 11, A CONCRETE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT THE BOOKS WERE RIGHTLY REJECTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE BO OKS WERE REJECTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING T HE G.P. RATE AND MAKING ADDITION AND THAT THE CENVAT WAS ADDED BY TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF AND THAT THE LIABILITY SHOWN IN THE NAME OF M/S ROHIT ( ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH WAS BOGUS LIABILITY SINCE THE PURCHASES ON THE SAID FIRM WERE NOT GENUINE. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY SHO WN IN THE NAME OF M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH WERE JUSTIFIE D. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ITAT HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE PRESENT CASE BY FOLLOWING THE PRINC IPLE OF CONSISTENCY. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. 257 ITR 235, [MP] AGRAWAL WAREHOUSI NG AND LEASING VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DATED 11 JULY, 2002 2. 284 ITR 93 [MAD] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS T HE LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD DATED 13 FEBRUARY, 2007 14. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CESAT DATED 29.8.2016 WAS NOT AVAILABLE EITHER BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT BUT NOW THE ORDER IS AVAIL ABLE WHEREIN SALES OF M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE GE NUINE AND THE ITAT BEING THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY SHOULD CONSIDER THE SA ID ORDER. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BO TH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE PURCHASES MA DE BY THEREFORE, ASSESSEE FROM 7 M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH WERE BOGU S PURCHASES. HE, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLIED G.P. RAT E FOR DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE LIABILITY TOWAR DS M/S ROHIT (ISPAT)'INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH AS BOGUS LIABILITY ONLY ON THIS BASIS TH AT PURCHASES WERE NOT GENUINE. NOW THE CESAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.8.2016 IN APP EAL NO. A/61246-61254/2016 VIDE PARA 6 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IN THESE CASES, THE DEPARTMENT SOUGHT TO DENY CENV AT CREDIT TO THE APPELLANTS ON THE BASIS OF FACT THAT THE REGISTERED DEALER FROM WHOM THE GOODS HAVE BEEN PROCURED BY THE APPELLANTS FOUND TO BE NO N EXISTENT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE GOODS. IN FACT, NO INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE END OF THE APPELLANTS TO ASCERTAIN THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE GOOD S OR NOT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTIGATION AT THE END OF THE MA NUFACTURER SUPPLIER OF THE GOODS. HO INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE TRANSP ORTER OF THE GOODS OR AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANTS TO REVEAL THE TRU TH. NO CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE REGISTERED DEALER WAS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANTS TO REVEAL THE TRUTH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CENVAT CR EDIT CANNOT BE DENIED TO THE APPELLANTS ON THE BASIS OF DEFICIENT INVESTIGATION. 16. FROM THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE CESAT, I T IS CLEAR THAT THE SALES FROM M/S ROHIT (ISPAT) INDIA, MANDI GOBINDGARH WERE HELD TO BE GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE SAID ORDER WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER OR TO THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET A SIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE V ARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 5.2 . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES VIS--VIS THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE B ENCH, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE ON A PARITY OF THE REASONING, TO RESTORE THE ISSUES BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS IN BOTH THE APPEALS. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF . 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :15 TH MAY,2017. POONAM/DNS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.