M/s Jogindra Castings (P) Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh V. Addl. CIT, Gobindgarh

ITA 616/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81080 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL DR AND
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV DATTA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A & B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 659/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S SHIVA CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE ADDL.CIT., VILL. TOORAN, AMLOH ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH RANGE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AACCS3543H APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJIV DATTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR AND ITA NO. 578/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE D.C.I.T., VS. M/S JOGINDRA CASTINGS (P) LTD., CIRCLE MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AACJ4218Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH AND ITA NO. 616/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S JOGINDRA CASTINGS (P) LTD., VS. THE D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE G.T.ROAD, SIRHIND SIDE, MANDI GOBINDGARH RANGE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AACJ4218Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2014 2 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OFF ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS RAISING THE SAME QUESTIONS ON IDENTICAL FACTS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A PPEALS SHALL DECIDE AS UNDER : ITA NO.659/CHD/2014 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) (M/S SHIVA CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ) 3. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), PATIALA DATED 29.5.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 . 4. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE REJE CTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ADDITION OF RS.1,67,014/- ON A CCOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT ON PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S ROHIT ISPA T (INDIA) AND ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA PROFI T. 5. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MS I NGOTS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS SEEN TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES OF PIG IRON AMOUNTING T O RS.13,07,705/- FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), MANDI GOBINDGARH. IN THIS CONNECTION, ONE REPORT FROM C ENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WHICH IS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SHORT, THE FA CT IS THAT 3 THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) SHRI SURE SH YADAV HAD OBTAINED THE CENTRAL EXCISE REGISTRATION FRAUDU LENTLY. IT NEITHER EXISTED OR CONDUCTED ANY BUSINESS FROM THE PREMISES AND DID NOT HAVE ANY GODOWN. IT WAS ISSUING INVOI CES WITHOUT ACTUAL RECEIPT/STORAGE/DISPATCH OF PIG IRON . THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THIS CONCERN WAS CANCEL LED RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 20.12.2006 BY THE EXCISE AUT HORITIES. SHRI SURESH YADAV HAD CONFESSED BEFORE THE EXCISE A UTHORITIES OF INDULGING IN PAPER TRANSACTION ONLY. IT WAS AL SO FOUND THAT PIG IRON WAS MOSTLY DELIVERED AT PALACES LIKE BATALA/DHANDARI KALAN WHILE THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CEN VATABLE INVOICES TO THE FURNACE UNITS OF MANDI GOBINDGARH W ERE ISSUED BY M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA). IT WAS, THEREFORE, NO T UNDERSTOOD AS TO WHY ONE SHOULD TAKE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS AT BATALA AND INCUR EXPENSES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE CONSIGNMEN T ALL THE WAY TO MANDI GOBINDGARH. BATALA IS A HUB OF FOUND RY INDUSTRY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT FAKE INVO ICES WERE ISSUED AND THERE WERE NO ACTUAL DELIVERY. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT APPEARS THAT FOUNDRY UNIT OF BATA LA HAD RECEIVED AND CONSUMED THE CONSIGNMENT OF PIG IRON W ITHOUT ACCOUNTING IN THEIR RECORDS AND FINISHED GOODS SO MANUFACTURED TOO HAVE BEEN CLEARED CLANDESTINELY BY THEM WITHOUT ACCOUNTING IN THEIR RECORDS ENABLING THEM T O REMAIN WITHIN SSI EXEMPTION LIMIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE FURNACE UNITS SEEM TO HAVE PROCURED NON-DUTY PAID SCRAP FRO M THE OPEN MARKET AND COVERED UP THE SAME BY RECEIVING CE NVATABLE INVOICES FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) AND OTHER SIM ILAR SOURCES. THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DONE DELIBERATE LY TO AVOID 4 DETECTION BY THE LAW ENFORCING AGENCIES AND APPEARS TO BE A MODUS OPERANDI FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PIG IRON WITH NON-DUTY PAID SCRAP, IN WHICH CENVATABLE INVOICES OF PIG IRON WERE OBTAINED FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) BUT ACTUALLY NON-DUTY PAID SCRA P WAS CONSUMED AS DISCUSSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, PIG IRON APP EARS TO HAVE BEEN USED IN FOUNDRY INDUSTRY AT BATALA. 6. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ALL THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AND THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DUE T O THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE AND FOUND THE PURCHASES TO BE BOGUS . IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) WAS DOING O NLY PAPER TRANSACTION AND WAS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY BUSINESS A CTIVITY. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IN UNACCOUNTED MARKET TRANSAC TION, PURCHASES WITHOUT BILL COULD CERTAINLY BE AT MUCH L OWER RATE AS COMPARED TO ACCOUNTED FOR DUTY AND TAX BEARING PURC HASES. APART FROM SAVING DUTY, THERE MAY BE VARIOUS REASON S FOR ASSESSEE TO COVER UP SUCH PURCHASES FROM OPEN MARKET WITH BO GUS DUTY PAID PURCHASES. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT DIFFERENCE IN AVERAGE PRICE PER METRIC TON FRO M THE PURCHASE MADE FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IS RS.20,102/- PE R METRIC TON VIS--VIS RS.17,919/- PER METRIC TON IN CASE OF NON -DUTY PURCHASES AND, THEREFORE, TOTAL INFLATION IN PURCHASE IS RS.1 ,36,550/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REJECTED HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE GP AT 2.47% AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 ,89,727/-. HOWEVER, NO FURTHER ADDITION OF CENVATE OR INFLATIO N IN PURCHASES 5 WAS MADE AS IT WAS DEEMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ADD ITION SO MADE. 7. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,89, 727/- BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.36.85 CORES AND DECLARED GP RATE OF 2.39%. HOWEVER, IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT HAS DECLARED TURN OVER OF RS.38.48 CRORES AND GP RATE OF 1.49% I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND TURNOVER OF RS.24.51 CRORES WITH G P RATE OF 2.55% IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IT WA S ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE BURNING LOSS HAS INCREASED AS CO MPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS SLIGHT DECREA SE IN GP RATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED PROP ER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALL ENTRIES ARE SUPPORTED BY DETAILS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO BASIS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR TO E NHANCE THE GP RATE. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), HOWEVER, REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.5,89,727/-, THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS WAS MAINTAINED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT ( APPEALS) IN PARAS 4.4 TO 5 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 5, 6 & 7, THE FACTS MARSHALED BY THE A.O. DISC USSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS AMPLY PROVES THAT THE ENTIRE P URCHASES FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT BOGUS. THE FINDINGS OF THE EXCISE A UTHORITIES WERE 6 CONFIRMED BY THE A.O. BY MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WHICH REVEALED THAT M/S ROHIT ISPAT WAS NOT DOING ANY ACTUAL TRADI NG ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT OF SR. Y ADAV, SR. SUBHAS AND SR. SUBHASH GARG, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPAN Y DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INFORM ED ABOUT THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE DEPT. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRANSACTION PARTI CULARLY LOOKING INTO THE CLINCHING REPORT OF THE EXCISE AUTHORITY AND VA RIOUS STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED. THESE WERE DUTY CONFRONTED T O THE APPELLANT AND HE WAS NOT PRECLUDED FROM PRODUCING THE PERSONS WITH WHOM HE ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTIONS FURTHER, THE ASSESSME NT IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS GATHERED AND DULY CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 5, 6 & 7 OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSE D. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT BOOKS OF A/C ARE RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE A.O. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTIN GUISHABLE. 4.4.1 AS REGARD GROUND NO. 3, I.E. ON THE ISSUE O F CENVAT, THE A.O. HAS CONTENDED THAT 'IN FACT, WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES WITH ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA), THE AS SESSEE REVERSED CENVAT CREDIT OF RS.1,67,014/- AVAILED ON THE PURCHASES F ROM ROHIT ISPAT. THE AMOUNT SO REVERSED HAS BEEN DEBITED BY ASSESSEE TO DUTY CONSUMED, ACCOUNT WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO SUPPRESSION OF PROF IT BY THIS AMOUNT. THUS, AN ADDITION OF RS.1,67,014/- IS TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT ONLY FOR WHICH ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE IT ACT. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AS PROFIT HAS BEEN SUPPRE SSED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. 4.4.2 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, I.E. INFLATION IN THE PRICE , IT IS NOTED THAT THE PURCHASES FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT IS IN CLUSIVE OF DUTY PAID AND WHILE COMPARING PRICE OF DUTY PAID SCRAP W ITH DUTY FREE SCRAP, THE DUTY ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED. H OWEVER, THIS GROUND IS BEING CONSIDERED IN PARA 4.4.3. 4.4.3 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THIS YEAR, THE G.P. IS 2 .39% ON TURNOVER OF RS.36.85 CRORE COMPARED TO 2.55% ON TURNOVER OF RS. 24.51 CRORE IN THE LAST YEAR. NO COMPARABLE CASE HAUE BEEN CITED B Y THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED SOME GENERAL REASON FOR FAL L IN G.P AND ALSO COMPARED HIS CASE WITH A.Y. 2005-06 WHEN GP WAS LOW ER. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE IS SUBSTITUTION OF BOGUS TRANSACTION BY NON DUTY SCRAP AS CONTENDED IN THE 7 ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY OF EARNING SOME EXTRA AMOUNT ALSO ON THESE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INT O BY THE APPELLANT. LOOKING INTO THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, T HERE/ORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT NET ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- (INCLUSI VE OF ALL ADDITION) IS JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE AGAINST RS.5,89 ,727/- MADE BY THE A.O . 05. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO.605/CH D/2014 DATED 15.10.2014 IN WHICH IN PARAS 7 TO 19, IT WAS HELD A S UNDER : 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT ULTIMATELY RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS TO THE FACT THAT ADDITION IS STILL ON EXCESSIVE SIDE AND RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT CHANDI GARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS P.LTD. V DCI T IN ITA 451/CHD/2012 DATED 12.09.2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE WER E OF RS. 1.03 CR ON WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 29,20,176/- AND THE ITAT REVISED THE ADDITION TO RS . 4 LACS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL PURCHASES BOGUS FOUND TO BE OF RS. 23,34,540/-. TH EREFORE, ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AT RS. 4,50, 000/- IS STILL ON EXCESSIVE SIDE. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLAC ED ON RECORD. 8. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(APPEALS). 9. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES HAVE FOUND THAT TRANSAC TIONS CONDUCTED BY M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) ARE FAKE AND N O ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE GOODS HAVE BEEN MADE. THESE WERE ON LY PAPER 8 TRANSACTIONS AND ULTIMATELY REGISTRATION OF M/S ROH IT ISPAT (INDIA) WAS CANCELLED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. T HE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CI T(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS THUS, CLEARLY SUPPORT THE FA CT THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIABLE AND HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO FOUND THAT THE GP RATE IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION IS BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE REFORE REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 4,50,000/-. HOWEVER, C ONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOGUS PURCHASES IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ARE VERY LESSER A S COMPARED TO THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS PVT. LTD. IN WHICH THE ITAT ULTIMATELY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS ONL Y. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GP RATE WAS BETTER IN EARLIER YEAR AS NOTED BY LD. CIT(APPE ALS) AND COMPARING THE FACTS WITH THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTI NGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE R EASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 2 L ACS AS AGAINST ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN A SUM OF RS. 4,50,000/-. THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE TH EREFORE MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT AND ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 2 LACS ONLY AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADDITION BY RS. 2 LACS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ITA 603/CHD/2014 ( M/S JATIN ISPAT PVT. LTD. ) 11. IN THIS CASE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AS HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE M/S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. AND SIMILARLY IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE MADE BOGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IN A SUM OF RS. 98,26,701/-. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER R EJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE GP AT 4.81% AGAINST DECLARED GP OF 3.66% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 26.20 CR AND ADDED RS. 30,13,777/- ON ACCOUNT OF EN HANCED GP. THE ASSESSEE SIMILARLY MADE THE SAME SUBMISSIO NS BEFORE 9 LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE GP RTE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 2.44% AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE GP RATE WA S 3.95%. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION IS STILL ON EXCESSIVE SIDE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THAT ASS ESSEE SUBSTITUTED THE BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THE GRAIN MARK ET, THEREFORE, MUST HAVE EARNED EXTRA PROFIT ON BOGUS T RANSACTION, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 16 LACS AGAINST ADDI TION OF RS. 30,13,777/-. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCED GROS S PROFIT. 12. BOTH THE PARTIES STATED THAT ISSUE IS SAME, THE REFORE FOLLOWING THE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE CASE OF M /S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD., WE CONFIRM REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH ALMOST SIMILAR GP HAS BEEN DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AND EVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, LESS GP OF 2.44% HAVE BEEN DECLARED AND CONSIDERING THE PART ADDITION SUSTAINE D IN THE CASE OF M/S GIAN CASTINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) BY ITAT , CHANDIGARH, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND PROPER TO RE STRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 6 LACS AS AGAINST RS. 16 LACS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE SE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 13. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL FURTHER CHALLENGED ADDITION OF RS. 24,43,885/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENTS. IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A LIABILITY OF RS. 25,43,8 85/- AGAINST M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IN THIS YEAR. TREAT ING THIS AS BOGUS LIABILITY, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIO N ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT( APPEALS) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THIS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT PERTAININ G TO BALANCE OF M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IGNORING THE SUR RENDER OF RS. 2 CR AND FURTHER SURRENDER OF OUTSTANDING BALANCE O F THE PARTY AS INCOME OF THE NEXT YEAR UNDER THE HEAD UNCLAIME D CREDITOR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER WAS STAT ED BY M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSES SEE AND THE 10 SAID AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 AND IN CASE THE ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THIS YEAR, THEN THE INCOME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SH OULD HAVE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WERE ALSO CALLED FOR IN WHICH ASSESSING OFF ICER EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PERTAINING TO M/S ROH IT ISPAT (INDIA). THEREFORE, ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 14. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE CORRECT BECAUSE IT WAS A FA CT THAT OUTSTANDING BALANCE WAS APPEARING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY AND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS E STABLISHED AS BOGUS. THEREFORE, LIABILITY IS NON-EXISTENT AND SHOULD HAVE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONTENDE D THAT THE SURRENDER MADE BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN RESPECT OF OU TSTANDING LIABILITY. THE ADDITION WAS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED A ND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. 15. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THIS APPEAL BUT IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS, IT IS STAT ED THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER OF RS. 2 CR AND THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT BALANCE IS MUCH LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT WHICH WAS ALSO WRITTEN BACK IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THEREFORE, ADDITION SHOUL D NOT BE MADE TWICE. 16. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE WAS APPEARING AGAINST M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 31.03.2008. THE TRANSA CTION WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS AND WHEN ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS FACT, IT WAS STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREA DY BEEN SURRENDERED AS INCOME IN THE NEXT YEAR ON ACCOUNT O F UNCLAIMED CREDITORS. IT WOULD PROVE THAT THE LIABI LITY WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS BOGUS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, ADDITION SHALL HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY. EVEN IF SOME 11 SURRENDER IS MADE IN NEXT YEAR, WOULD NOT BE RELEVA NT THEREFORE, IN PRINCIPLE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUS TIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 25,43,885/- O N ACCOUNT OF UNCLAIMED CASH CREDIT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE ANY PLEA BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, FOR REDRESSAL O F HIS GRIEVANCE, IF ANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WITH THE SE OBSERVATIONS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. 18. NO OTHER POINTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN A RGUED OR PRESSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. HE HAS, THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS C OVERED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REV ENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND SUB MITTED THAT THE CASE IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. 12. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF M/S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. CIT (SUPRA), W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS REGARDS THE FACTS ARE CONCERNED, THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO REJECTION OF TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE THAT THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES HAVE FOUND THAT THE TRA NSACTIONS CONDUCTED BY M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) ARE FAKE AND N O ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS HAD BEEN MADE. THESE WERE ONLY PAPER TRANSACTIONS AND ULTIMATELY REGISTRATION OF M/S ROH IT ISPAT (INDIA) WAS CANCELLED BY THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. THE FIND INGS OF FACT 12 RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CLEARLY SUPPORT T HE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIABLE AND HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN T HE CASE OF M/S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. CIT (SUPRA), T HE GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BETTER IN EARLIER YEAR AS WAS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE, THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER A PPEAL IS ADMITTEDLY LESSER AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT ALLOWED IN THE CA SE OF M/S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. CIT (SUPRA) COULD NO T BE EXTENDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING TH E DISCUSSION MADE IN THAT CASE AND FOLLOWING THE REASONS GIVEN, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS TO RS.4 LACS IN ALL, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE, THEREFORE, MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ADDITION WOULD BE R ESTRICTED TO RS.4 LACS ONLY IN PLACE OF RS.5 LACS MAINTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS MADE OF RS.1,6 7,014/- ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT OR INFLATION IN PURCHASES. THER EFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS REGARD WOULD STAN D DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.578/CHD/2014 (REVENUES APPEAL) (M/S JOGINDRA CASTINGS (P) LTD. ) & ITA NO.616/CHD/2014 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) (M/S JOGINDRA CASTINGS (P) LTD. ) 14. BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIA LA DATED 26.3.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN THIS CA SE, THE 13 FACTS ARE SIMILAR AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CA SE OF M/S SHIVA CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA), IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE BUGUS PURCHASES FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) OF PIG IRON FOR A SUM OF RS.1.15 CROR ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMILARLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE GP RATE AT 2.25% (2.26%) ON TURNOVER OF RS.9.74 CRORES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.47,25,350/-. IN TH IS YEAR, THE GP RATE DECLARED IS 1.76% WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE BETTER THAN GP RATE DECLARED IN EARLIER YEAR AT 1.32%. H OWEVER, NO FURTHER ADDITION OF CENVAT AND INFLATION IN PURCHAS ES IS MADE AS IT WAS DEEMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ADDITION SO MADE. NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.14,98,163/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CENVAT WAS MADE AS IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE GP ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CONSIDERING T HE GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE BETTER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AS AGAINST THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND INFLATION IN THE PRICES, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.20 LACS AS AG AINST THE ADDITION OF RS.47,25,350/-. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEA LS), HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. 15. THE ASSESSEE ON GROUND NOS.1 TO 5 IN THIS APPEA L CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ADDIT ION OF RS.20 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCED GP RATE, INFLATED PURCH ASES AND DISALLOWANCE OF CENVAT OF RS.14,98,163/-. 16. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 CHALLENGED T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN REDUCING THE ADDITI ON TO RS.20 LACS OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.47,25,350/-. 14 17. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS APPE ALS. THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM NON-EXISTING CONCERN, WHO WAS D OING ONLY PAPER WORK. THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IS CONSIDER ED IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIVA CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) & OTHERS REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REJECTION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNT IS CONFIRMED. FURTHER FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS C OMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS WAS BETTER. THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) ALSO CONSIDERED THE INFLATION IN THE PRICE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.47,25,350/- TO RS.20 LACS. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CENVAT OF RS.14,98,163/- IS NOT SEPARATELY ADDED BECAUSE THE SAME IS CONSIDERED IN THE GP ADDITION. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE IS R EQUIRED. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), THEREFORE, IS CONFIRMED AS A RESULT OF WHICH DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 STANDS DISMISSED AS WELL AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ON GROUND NOS.1 TO 5 WOULD ALSO BE DISMISSED. 18. ON GROUND NO.6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,82,000/- F OR BOGUS CREDIT ENTRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SU M OF RS.3,82,000/- STANDS CREDITED AGAINST M/S ROHIT ISP AT (INDIA) 15 IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 .3.2008. IT WAS FOUND THAT THIS FIRM WAS ONLY DOING PAPER WO RK AND WAS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BY NOT PRODUCING CONFIRMATION FROM M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) IN RESPEC T OF OUTSTANDING CREDIT. IT ALSO EXPRESSED ITS INABILI TY TO PRODUCE THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) FOR PERSO NAL EXAMINATION. IT WAS, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THERE APPEARS A BOGUS ENTRY OF RS.3,82,000/- WHICH WAS NOT GENUINE AND THAT M/S ROHIT ISPAT (INDIA) WAS NEVER CREDIT-WORTHY FOR SUCH TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE ACCORDIN GLY. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 19. THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS CONSIDERED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S VIMAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. THE ADDL. CIT AND M/S J ATIN ISPAT PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, REPRODUCED ABOVE. THEREFORE, FOLLO WING THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2014, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 20. ON GROUND OF APPEAL NO.7, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENG ED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,97,343/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SUBSIDY AMOUNTI NG TO RS.27,53,500/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE VALUE OF ITS FIXED ASSETS IN PLANT AND MACHINERY ACCOUNT FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. IN T HIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN ITS REPLY THA T SUBSIDY 16 HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF PACKAGE OF INCENT IVES AVAILABLE FOR SETTING UP NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN PUNJAB. THE SUBSIDY HAS NOT BEEN BELONGED TO ANY SPECIFIC A SSETS. COPY OF SANCTION LETTER OF SUBSIDY IS ENCLOSED HERE WITH . THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY HAS FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT I N VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD. (1994) 12 CTR (SC) 201 AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STANDAR D FIREWORKS (P) LTD., 326 ITR 498 (P&H), SUBSIDY CANN OT BE DEDUCTED FROM ACTUAL COST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY MAY NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE FIXED ASSETS UNDER THE HEAD PLANT & MACHINERY BEFORE ALLOWING DEPRECIATION EXCEPT THAT PLACING ITS RELIANCE ON TH E ABOVE DECISIONS. IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THESE CASES APPEAR TO BE MIS-PLACED AFTER INSERTION OF EX PLANATION- 10 APPENDED TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT INTRODUCED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT W.E.F. 1.4.1999, WHICH THUS BECOME EFFECTIV E ONLY AFTER THE DECISION IN THE ABOVE CASES. THESE JUDG MENTS ARE RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO INSERTION OF EXPLANATION-10 APPENDED TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER REPRODUCING THE EXPLANATION -10 TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUB SIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE ACTUAL COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND ACCORDINGLY, RECOMP UTED THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,97,343/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECI ATION ON 17 SUBSIDY. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE E XPLANATION- 10 TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE E XPLANATION- 10 TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT IS EFFECTIVE W.E.F. 1.4 .1999. HE HAS ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THE ABOVE DECISION CITED BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) PERTAIN TO THE AMENDMENT IN S ECTION 43 BEFORE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION-10 TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. HE HAS, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE SUBSIDY H AS BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST THE UNIT SET-UP BEFORE 1.4.1999, T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE HAS REFERRED TO PAGES 14 AND 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN THIS REGARD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 22. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT EXPLANATION-10 TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED IN THE ACT W.E.F. 1.4.1999, THROUGH WHICH IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE ACTUAL COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY . THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION WHILE INCLUDING THE SUBSIDY IN THE AC TUAL COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, AGAINST T HE PROVISO TO EXPLANATION-10 TO SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE SUBSIDY. THIS GROUND 18 HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 23. ON GROUND NO.8, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED CHARGIN G OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C, WHICH IS CONS EQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY NATURE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DIS MISSED. 24. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED IN BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS. 25. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DISMI SSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.659/CHD/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, WHEREAS THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.578/CHD/2014 AND APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN ITA NO.616/2014 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH