The ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Suraj Limited, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 447/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7240 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of cross examination; Question of law; Set aside; Bogus
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठअहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठ “ ए एए ए “, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । ।। । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. Nos. IT(ss)A No(s) Assessment Year (s) Appeal(s) by Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 446/Ahd/2019 2008-09 The ACIT Central Circle-1(3) Ahmedabad (Revenue) M/s.Suraj Ltd. “Suraj House” Opp. Usmanpura Garden Vidhyanagar Society Usmanpura, Ahmedabad (Assessee) PAN: AAGCS 6939 M 2. 515/Ahd/2019 2012-13 Assessee The DCIT Central Circle-1(3) Ahmedabad 3. 516/Ahd/2019 2013-14 Assessee -do- Revenue 4. 536/Ahd/2019 2012-13 The ACIT CC-1(3) Assessee 5. 543/Ahd/2019 2013-14 The ACIT Assessee 6. 447/Ahd/2019 2011-12 The ACIT Assessee Assessee by : Shri Jignesh Parikh, AR Revenue by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 14/05/2024 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All the above appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 01/07/2019 pertaining to AYs 2008- 09 & 2011-12) and dated 05/09/2019 pertaining to AYs 2012-13, 2013-14. While there are cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue against order of the Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y 2012-13 & A.Y 2013-14, the Department has filed appeal against order of the Ld.CIT(A) for A.Y 2008-09 & A.Y 2011-12. IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 2 2. It was common ground that the issues (except quantum) involved in these appeals are identical arising in the backdrop of identical facts. Therefore all the appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that the common issue arising in all the appeals pertained to disallowance of purchases made by the assessee from certain parties, holding them to be bogus on identical basis in all the years before us. He contended that the said basis now no longer survived and therefore the additions made as a consequence needed to be deleted. This he stated was his primary contention in relation to all the appeals before us. Elaborating further ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that a search was conducted by Director General of Central Excise Intelligence Authorities (DGCEI for short) on three parties M/s. Shah Foils Ltd., M/s.Sunrise Stainless Pvt.Ltd. and M/s.Sunrise Tradewings Pvt.Ltd on 10/07/2012 wherein a pen-drive was found containing certain information and the same was treated as incriminating material and it was noted therefrom that these entities were making bogus sales to various parties. Basis the information derived from the pen-drive, the DGCEI conducted search on the assessee on 06/12/2013 but found no incriminating material, however, a panchnama was drawn at the factory premises of the assessee, wherein an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- CENVAT Credit was made to be reversed by the Investigation Team on account of alleged bogus purchases made. That, subsequently, on the basis of this information, the Income Tax Department conducted search u/s.132 of the Act on the assessee on IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 3 18/12/2013. During search an excel-sheet was found with the assessee, which was treated as incriminating material. The Department carried out inquiries with the DGCEI which in turn supplied all information available with it including the statement of the Directors of M/s.Shah Foils Ltd. The assessee asked for cross-examination of the Director, which was provided. That, during assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer conducted quantitative analysis also and he found the purchases from all these three entities to be bogus. Accordingly, in all the impugned three years, additions on account of bogus purchases were made, which are as under Sr.No. Asst.Year Amount of Additions made by Assessing Officer (Rs.) 1. 2008-09 1,84,25,818/- 2. 2011-12 13,81,49,189/- 3. 2012-13 28,35,53,132/- 4. 2013-14 15,02,55,025/- 4. The break-up of the above purchases made from the three different parties is as under: Asst. Year Name of the Party Amount of purchases treated as bogus (Rs.) Total amount of addition made by the Assessing Officer towards bogus purchases (Rs.) 2008-09 (i) Shah Foils Ltd. 1,84,25,818/- 1,84,25,818/- 2011-12 Shah Foils Ltd. (i) Sunrise Tradewings Pvt.Ltd. 13,37,29,535/- 44,19,654/- 13,81,49,189/- 2012-13 (i) Shah Foils Ltd. (ii) Sunrise Stainless Pvt.Ltd. (iii) Sunrise Tradewings 17,03,70,650/- 10,28,00,827/- IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 4 Pvt.Ltd. 1,03,81,655/- 28,35,53,132/- 2013-14 (i) Shah Foils Ltd. (ii) Sunrise Stainless Pvt.Ltd. (iii) Sunrise Tradewings Pvt.Ltd. 6,63,00,548/- 7,09,53,423/- 1,30,01,054/- 15,02,55,025/- 5. The Ld.counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who deleted the entire addition made in AYs 2008-09 & 2011-12 finding that no incriminating material was found from the assessee during the course of search and applying the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt.Ltd. reported at 81 Taxmann.com 292 that, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no addition could be made in the years where assessments were unabated. With respect to AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14, the ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out, that the Ld.CIT(A) held the excel- sheet to be incriminating material, but he restricted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 12% thereon being the profit embedded therein. 6. Being aggrieved, the Department is in appeal for AYs 2008-09 & 2011- 12, while both the assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 . 7. The common issue in all the appeals therefore he stated related to the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee from three parties M/s. Shah Foils Ltd., M/s.Sunrise Stainless Pvt.Ltd. and M/s.Sunrise Tradewings Pvt.Ltd, which primarily was based on information revealed during search conducted by DGCEI on these entities. IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 5 In this regard he drew our attention to the grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal for A.Y 2008-09 & 2011-12 , which are identically worded,in ITA Nos.446 & 447/Ahd/2019 as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that any addition during the assessment u / s 153A has to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s.132(1) of the Act, even though, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that sec. 153A requires a notice to be issued requiring the assessee to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and to assess or re-assess the total income of those six assessment years, and that the scheme of assessment or re-assessment of the total Income of a person searched will be brought to naught if no addition is allowed to be made for those six assessment years in the absence of any seized incriminating material. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that while computation of undisclosed income of the block period u/s.158BB was to be made on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of accounts, there is no such stipulation in sec. 153A and sec. 153BI specifically states that the provisions of Chapter-XIV-B, under which sec. 158BB falls, would not be applied where a search was initiated u/s.132 after 31/5 / 2003. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that assessment in relation to certain issues not related to the search and seizure may arise in any of the said six assessment years after the search u/s.132 is conducted in the case of the assessee, and that if the interpretation of the Id. CIT(A) were to hold it will not be possible to assess such income in the 153A proceedings, while no other parallel proceedings to assess such other income can be initiated, leading to no possibility of assessing such other income, which could not have been the intention of the legislature. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,84,25,818/- (Rs.13,81,49,189/- for AY 2011-12) on account of disallowance of bogus purchase. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering the facts that in the statement given before the Central Excise Authority, Shri Kartik Ramesh Shah, Director of M/s Shah Foils Ltd. categorically accepted that the sales were effected through M/s Sankalp Foils Pvt. Ltd. and after the clearance of goods from the factory of M/s IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 6 Shah Foils Ltd., M/s Sankalp Foils Pvt. Ltd. diverted the goods and sold the same to some other parties and gave only invoices to the assessee, without delivery of the gods. The said statement has also been countersigned by Shri Snehal Rajnikant Shah, Director of M/s Sankalp Foils Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has also not circumspectly considered the categorical confirmation of Shri Ashok T. Shah that the company Surja Limited received only CENVATABLE invoices from M/s. Shah foils Ltd. and M/s.Sunrise stainless Ltd. without receipt of goods and the statement of other persons as discussed in the assessment order have not been taken in toto. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to consider the evidences found during the course of survey at Mumbai office of Suraj Group and wrongly concluded that these are only allegations without any significant evidences and also not pertained to the year under consideration; though evidences clearly suggests cash transaction. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 10. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.” And to the grounds raised both by the Revenue and the assessee in their cross appeals for A.Y 2012-13 & 2013-14, which were also identically worded, as under: Revenue’s appeal in IT(ss)A No.536 & 543/Ahd/2019 for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition to Rs.3,40,26,376/- (i.e. 12% of bogus purchases of Rs.28,35,53,132) from Rs.28,35,53,132/- [restricting the addition to Rs.1,80,30,603/- (i.e. 12% of bogus purchases of Rs.15,02,55,025) from Rs.15,02,55,025/- for AY 2013-14] made on account of bogus purchases from M/s Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd., M/s Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Suraj Tradewing Pvt. Ltd. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the goods have actually been purchased, but IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 7 from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account though no such material facts was brought on record by the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there were actual purchases though from the other parties not mentioned in the books of account without any corroborative evidences submitted by assessee and that if there were actual purchases assessee should have submitted necessary proof. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the statement of Shri Kartik Ramesh Shah, Director of M/s Shah Foils Ltd. before DGCEI that they gave only invoices to assessee company, without delivery of goods. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the statement of Shri Ashok T Shah Chairman of the assessee company before DGCEI that they had received only CENVATABLE invoices during the period from 2010-11 to till date (i.e. 06.12.2013) from Shah Foils Limited and M/s Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the material evidences brought on record by the AO that entire purchases shown from these 3 parties are bogus and assessee claimed bogus expenses to that extent in its books of account. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,83,000/- ( for AY 2012-13) made on account of interest payment. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent. Assessee’s appeal in IT(ss)A No.515 & /Ahd/2019 for AYs 2012-13 & 2013- 14: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while coming to conclusion that purchases of raw materials by the appellant company during the previous year 2011-12 (previous year 2012-13 for appeal of AY 2013-14) IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 8 from the three parties namely (i) Shah Foils Ltd., (ii) Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and (iii) Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. are bogus, merely on preponderance of probability and ignoring all relevant evidences in support of the contention that the purchases from these three parties are actual and genuine. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences placed on records, the purchases from these three parties are required to be treated as genuine. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while confirming the addition on account of alleged purchases on the basis of statement of third parties without allowing an opportunity of cross examination. In view of the legal position, the addition is required to be deleted. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while confirming the addition on account of Gross Profit of Rs. 3,40,26,376/- [Rs.1,80,30,603/- for AY 2013-14) out of the alleged purchases of Rs.28,35,53,132/- [Rs.15,02,55,025/- for AY 2013-14], without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,40,26,376/- [ Rs.1,80,30,603/- AY 2013-14] out of the addition made by the AO for alleged bogus purchases of Rs.28,35,53,132/- [Rs.15,02,55,025 for AY 2013-14]. Thus, the addition is required to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while confirming the addition of gross profit on the total purchases from the three parties during the previous year 2011-12 [the previous year 2012-13 for appeal of AY 2013-14] , without appreciating the fact that during the course of search, no incriminating material was found. In view of the legal position, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search. 8. Ld.DR fairly agreed with the above, that the issue and the facts and circumstances in all the cases before us was identical. 9. The Ld.counsel for the assessee thereafter pointed out that the very basis for the additions made on account of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee from the three entities as noted above, being the information IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 9 collected during the search conducted by the DGCEI no longer survived. He pointed out that the case of bogus sales made by the DGCEI in the case of M/s.Shah Foils Ltd. was reversed by the first appellate authority, CESTAT Ahmedabad, which order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 08/01/2020 and further SLP against the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Similarly, he stated that the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad in Excise Appeal No.10939 of 2015 had given a clear finding of no bogus sales in the case(s) of Sunrise Stainless Pvt.Ltd. and Sunrise Tradewings Pvt.Ltd. vide order dated 06/12/2019 . He also pointed out that the CENVAT credit of Rs.75 lakhs reversed by the DGCEI authority on search conducted on the assessee in relation to alleged bogus purchases made from said parties was also refunded to the assessee vide order of the Office of the Commissioner (Appeal), Central GST, Appeal Commissionerate, Ahmedabad (CESTAT) order dated 11/09/2023. Copies of all the above orders were placed before us. He pointed out, therefore, that very basis for holding that the purchases made by the assessee from M/s.Shah Foils Ltd., M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt.Ltd. and M/s.Sunrise Tradewings Pvt.Ltd. were bogus no longer survived and, therefore, all the additions made in the impugned years needed to be deleted. 10. The Ld.DR though fairly agreed with the same, however, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 11. Since the Ld.DR was unable to controvert the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the basis for making disallowance on IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 10 account of alleged bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee no longer survived, we completely agree with the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the disallowance was not sustainable. However, we have gone through the relevant portion of every order referred to by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee before us in support of its above contention. 12. It is an undisputed fact recorded in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities also that the addition of bogus purchases made in the hands of the assessee arose on account of search action carried out by the DGCEI on the seller i.e. Sun Stainless Pvt.Ltd., Shah Foils Ltd. and Sunrise Tradewings P.Ltd. on 10.7.2012, and search action conducted by the DGCEI on the assessee on 6.12.2013. The assessee has filed the order passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shah Foils Ltd. in pursuance to the search action conducted by the DGCEI on it, which order was passed in R/Tax Appeal No.659 of 2019 with R/Tax Appeal Nos.660-661 of 2019 decided on 8.1.2020, recording the fact of search conducted by the DGCEI on Shah Foils Ltd. on 10.7.2012 at para 6.1 of the order, and finding of the investigation by the DGCEI that they had suppressed production of goods and removed goods for sale without payment of excise duty, which recorded at para 6.1 to 6.5 of the order. The order further reveals that CESTAT allowed the assessee’s appeal vide its order dated 18.1.2019 vide final order in Appeal Nos.A/10120-10125/2019 holding that charges of clandestine removal of goods was not sustainable. The Department went in appeal against the order of the CESTAT to the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, who in turn rejected the appeal filed by the Department, IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 11 finding no question of law arising for consideration. Their finding at para 9 of the order reads as under: “9. In view of the aforesaid finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration out of the impugned order and accordingly, the appeals are summarily rejected. No order as to cost.” 13. Before us, the assessee has also placed order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the SPL filed by the Revenue against the above order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos.13826- 13828 of 2020 vide order dated 8.1.2021. It is thus patently clear from the above that Shah Foils Ltd. was absolved of all the charges of clandestine/ unaccounted sales leveled on it on account of investigation of the DGCEI by virtue of search conducted on 10.7.2012. 14. Before us, was also placed order of the CESTAT, Western Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Sunrise Stainless P.Ltd. and Sunrise Tradewings P.Ltd. recording the fact of appeal arising on account of orders passed in both their cases in pursuance to search conducted by the DGCEI on 10.7.2012 revealing clandestine sales made by them without payment of excise duty. The CESTAT held that charges of clandestine removal of goods was not sustainable as recorded in para 16 of its order on both the parties. The said order was passed in Appeal No.10939 and 10940 2015. It is abundantly evident from the above that both M/s Sunrise Stainless P.Ltd., and M/s Sunrise Tradewings were absolved of all the IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 12 charges of clandestine/ unaccounted sales leveled on it on account of investigation of the DGCEI by virtue of search conducted on 10.7.2012. 15. Further, the assessee filed before us, order passed by the CESTAT, Ahmedabad in its own case in final order No.A/12183-12189 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 taking cognizance of all the above orders passed in the case of Shah Foils Ltd., Sunrise Stainless P.Ltd. and consolidated assessee’s appeal against the order passed by the Excise Department raising demand on the assessee on account of availing CENVAT credit on the strength of purchase invoice, received from aforementioned parties without receipt of inputs in their factories, i.e. based on bogus purchase made by the assessee. The assessee also filed before us copy of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central GST, Appeal Commissionerate, Ahmedabad dated 18.8.2023 recording the fact of CENVAT credit of Rs.75 lakhs availed by the assessee being reversed on search conducted by the DGCEI on the assessee on 6.12.2023 at para 2.1 of its order. The assessee had sought refund of the same in its appeal which was granted vide impugned order at para -6 holding that the assessee was entitled to refund of Rs.75 lakhs along with interest. Thus, it is clear that once the assessee was absolved of the charges levelled on it of having availed wrong input credit/CENVAT credit, entire CENVAT credit reversed was refunded to it. It is evident from the above facts narrated and stated by the ld.counsel for the assessee before us , that the basis for holding purchases made by the assessee, to be bogus, no longer survive, which is abundantly IT(ss)A Nos.446,515,516,536,543 & 447/Ahd/2019 ACIT/DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Ltd (Revenue & Assessee) AYs 2008-09-Reveneue, 2012-13 & 2013-14 (cross-appeals), 2011-12-Revenue 13 clear from the orders of various judicial authorities, as gone through by us as above. 16. In view of the same, there is no case, we hold, for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee, and all the additions so made are therefore directed to be deleted. All the appeals of the assessee as a consequence are allowed in above terms, and that by the Revenue are dismissed. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed, while the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed as per above terms. Order pronounced in the Court on 14 th May, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad, Dated 14/05/2024