TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention. Neither any material could be placed before the AO/DRP to demonstrate the booking of profit from such transactions in the immediately succeeding year, nor the position has improved any further before the Tribunal. In view of the admitted facts that the transactions did take place, and profit from them was neither recorded in the year under consideration nor the next year, we hold that the AO was justified in making the addition. The ground is, therefore, dismissed. Unrecorded transactions - transactions of Gold - HELD THAT:- We have also gone through the ledger of transactions of Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. with the assessee, whose copy has been placed at page 25 onwards of the paper book, showing Buy Sauda date as 01-02- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not take the delivery as a sum of Rs. 1.25 crore is still due from NSEL as per the above statement. On one hand, the assessee did not receive the delivery despite making payment for the purchase price, on the other, the AO computed profit from the presumed sale. We fail to appreciate that when the goods were not received in the first instance, where is the question of presuming the corresponding sale and then working out the profit therefrom. We, therefore, order to delete the addition. - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee by: Shri Prateek Jha Shri Prayag Jha For the Revenue by: Shri Ravi Prakash ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : These two appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 with quantity of 7200 and of Rs. 34,44,000/- on 11-03-2013 with quantity of 2400; and corresponding unrecorded Paddy Sell transactions of the same quantity on same dates for Rs. 1,26,41,400/- and Rs. 35,16,360/- respectively. On being called upon to explain as to why profit from these sets of transactions, totalling to Rs. 3,47,760/-, was not recorded in the books, the assessee submitted that the profit was actually recorded in the subsequent year. However, the assessee failed to disclose the depiction of such profit in the subsequent year. The same position prevailed before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as well. There also the assessee could not substantiate his claim that the profit of Rs. 3,47,760/- was shown in the subsequent yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LDM of the same quantity for Rs. 96,91,360/-. The assessee, in his Profit and Loss account, had shown the purchase transaction of GOLDM at Rs. 47,88,186/- and sale transaction of GOLDM at Rs. 48,47,520/-, giving profit of Rs. 59,334/-. The AO observed that the assessee additionally purchased Gold for Rs. 47,08,000/-, which was sold for Rs. 48,47,520/-. Such transactions were found not to have been recorded. He, therefore, computed profit from such unrecorded transactions at Rs. 1,35,840/- and proposed the addition in the draft order. No succour was provided by the DRP. This resulted in the addition in the final assessment order. 7. Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee debited Rs. 6,82,453/- as expenses in his Profit and loss account under different heads, such as, Insurance, Car expenses, Bank charges, Accountant salary, Driver salary, Car fuel, Travelling, Printing and Depreciation etc. The AO held that since the business was transacted only through Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. and hence, the assessee was not required to incur any further expenditure in relation thereto. He, therefore, disallowed 80% of the expenses by allowing deduction only at 20%, against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 9. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen as an admitted position that the assessee did carry on the business in the year under considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced recording the Sauda date at 18-07-2013. The AO computed profit at Rs. 1,72,844/- and proposed the addition thereof in the draft order. No relief was allowed by the DRP, which led to the making of addition to this extent in the final assessment order. 12. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the AO once again went through Sauda dates to compute profit from the transaction which was not offered for taxation. As against that, we have perused the statement of the assessee s account in the books of Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd. This statement shows the Buy date of 18-07-2013 with Buy amount at Rs. 1,26,67,200/-. Before the transaction could be actually finalised and delivery o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
