9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umb). Assessee had not disclosed these transactions in her return of income. Assessee had also deposited case of Rs. 56,30,000/- in here bank a/c held with SBBJ Bijainagar. AO made addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- and CIT(A) had confirmed the additions. Now, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal that reads as under:- "Under the facts & circumstances of case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the business/ trading of M/s Pankaj Trader as of assessee though assessee is only SUBBROKER in MCDX/ NCDX. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- u/s 69. 3. That further Ld. CIT(A) has erred in non granting the "SET - OFF of loss of Rs. 55,69,500.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was a sub-broker and the margins were received in cash from clients which were deposited in the bank accounts. The assessee has not opened any client's accounts, as per the direction/guidance of SEBI. The persons who were examined by the income tax authorities were also failed to produce any supporting evidence with regard to the transactions claimed to have been done through the assessee as sub-brokers. It is also a pertinent to note that all persons denied having any bank account, PAN No., except Shri Prakash Bumb who is husband of the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that no bills were issued to the clients for commodities transactions. In the statement recorded Smt. Leela Devi has categorically stated that she is not having any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. The appellant has also argued that loss of Rs. 55,69,580/- incurred by the appellant on transactions carried out through NCDX and MCX should be allowed against the addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- made by the AO u/s 69. I have considered this argument of appellant carefully. It is an undisputed fact that loss of Rs. 55,69,580/- is a loss sustained in a speculation business. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the set-off of this loss cannot, be allowed against the income of Rs. 56,30,000/- taxed u/s 69 because section 73(1) clearly provides that "Any loss, computed in respect speculation business carried on by the assessee, shall not be set off except against profits and ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed view, the assessee has not able to file any documentary evidence with regard to the nature and source of the cash deposits in her bank account of Rs. 56,30,000/-. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly sustained the additions. As far as alternative plea of the assessee with regard to the set off of the loss to be allowed against the income of Rs. 56,30,000/- taxed u/s 69 is also against the legal provision of the Act. This loss was a 'speculation loss' and it could be set off only against 'speculation income'. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly denied the benefit of set off to the assessee. The final plea of the Ld. A/R that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO also cannot be accepted for the reasons that the assessee has been prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
