TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Kumar Anand[ 2022 (5) TMI 1488 - ITAT DLEHI] wherein it was held that when Assessing Officer made addition of certain amount to income of assessee from undisclosed sources taxable under section 69 claim of set off loss is to be allowed. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow the set off loss suffered by assessee against addition of undisclosed income. Thus, the Ground raised by assessee is allowed in above terms. - ITA No.717/SRT/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-12-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth For the Revenue : Shri J.K. Chandnani, Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [for short as to Ld. CIT(A) ] dated 29.08.2018 for assessment year (AY) 2008-09, which in turn arises out an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) vide order dated 28.03.2014. The assessee has raised the following ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee in his reply dated 22.03.2014 submitted that during the relevant period he sold certain machinery and jewellery to different persons to make trading in F O in Religare Securities Pvt. Ltd. in such trading he used to deposits 10 to 15% of margin as securities amounts and purchased various script of different dates. On each and every time, the assessee was unable to cash so as per Security Exchange Board of India s guidelines he entered into agreement with Religare Securities Pvt. Ltd. The assessee furnished account statement and copy of all transactions in stock market script-wise details and profit and loss. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer held that assessee failed to furnish copy of transaction with Religare Securities Pvt. Ltd., after taking such view, the assessee was asked to furnish Dmat account for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 with Edelweiss Finance Advisory Ltd. The Assessing Officer recorded that required details were not furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the entire share transaction of Rs. 21,09,976/- as nongenuine and added to the income of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contents of which is recorded by Ld. CIT(A) in para-7.2 of his order, wherein the assessee stated that peak investment during the period is only Rs.10,23,600/-. On profit or loss account transaction in share market from the details furnished by Assessing Officer, the assessee stated that as per remand report of Assessing Officer final result of profit and loss account are drawn as under: Segment Total purchase value (in Rs) Total sales value (in Rs) Profit/(Loss) (in Rs) Cash (Delivery) 67,51,764.83 67,55,358.01 (1,68,881.34) Derivatives 29,63,88,448.50 29,54,18,997.60 (9,69,450.90) Total loss (11,38,332.24) 5. The assessee further stated that against the investment of Rs.10,23,600/- the assessee incurred the loss of Rs.11,38,332/-. Hence, net addition income would be Rs.(-) 1,14,732/- after set of loss. The assessee stated that he has not carried forward any kind of loss in his return of income. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the cash delivery segment the assessee would not pressed for any other ground. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that it is an admitted position under law that where the Assessing Officer made addition of some amount to the assessees income as income from undisclosed sources under section 69, the claim of loss for set off to be allowed. To support his contention, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rajendra Kumar Anand vs. Income Tax Officer [2022] 140 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi-Trib.) [25.05.2022] and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-II Vs. Shilpa Dyeing Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., [2013] 39 taxmann.com 3 (Guj) [2013] 219 Taxman 279 (Guj) [04-04-2013]. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shilpa Dyeing Printing Mills (P.) Ltd., (supra) held that once the loss is determined, the same should be set off against the income determined under any other head of income including undisclosed income. 9. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee neither in his comput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
