TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court and Supreme Court envisaged u/s 68. - I.T.A. No.1847/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 5-4-2021 - SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Adv And Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv Respondent by Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 21.12.2018 passed by CIT(A)-16, New Delhi for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well on facts in confirming the additions made by the AO to the returned income. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement recorded on Oath. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the action of the AO by holding that valid, proper and meaningful opportunity has been allowed to the assessee. That even otherwise, the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the additions, has completely disregarded the detailed submissions and evidences furnished, as such the assessment made is untenable. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well as on facts in sustaining the charge of interest u/s 234A B of the I.T. Act. 3. The return of income was filed by the assessee declaring total income of ₹ 1,80,240/-. The Assessing Officer was in receipt of information that the assessee had made cash deposits in different ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich confirmed the reassessment order is impugned in these proceedings. More particularly in the reassessment, the Assessing Officer had summoned 18 individuals to the MCX trade transactions carried out during the year by the assessee sub-broker through the aegis of the main broker viz., Jurassic Finance Consultants Private Ltd. The personal depositions of the individual u/s 131 of the Act were recorded in which they had categorically confirmed the transactions. Yet the Assessing Officer construed the total advances extended by the individuals to the assessee for trade in a sum of ₹ 75,59,000/- as cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. While doing so, the Assessing Officer added a further sum of ₹ 16,00,000/- in account of Sh. Mandeep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction by transaction, establishes beyond an iota of doubt that every advance from each individual customer was received for trading and out of which trading activity carried out on different dates at the MCX. The Ld. AR further pointed out that the net commission income as earned from these transactions has been accepted by the Assessing Officer while computing the assessment. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has duly allowed deduction for the commission paid to the main Broker Jurassic Finance Consultants Private Ltd. in whose case the commission as earned from the assessee also stands returned for assessment. All credits in the two Bank accounts of the assessee with Kotak Mahindra Bank and DCB Bank were reconciled with the accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities in the AY 2011-12 in assessment and appeal have been held by the Tribunal to be distinguishable in para 5.1 of the order. For the above reasons, the Ld. AR prayed that relying upon past precedent and the material and evidence existing on the records of the subject year, the two additions of ₹ 75,59,000/- and ₹ 16,00,000/- as made in assessment and assailed vide Ground Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 be quashed with appropriate directions for consequential reliefs as well on Ground No. 7. The Ld. AR further submits that Ground No. 2 is not pressed 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the assessee CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As related to G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
