2022 (2) TMI 382 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision dismissing appeal for AY 2011-12. Income additions, sub broker account, and loss claim upheld.

Ajababhai Anadabhai Patel Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 Palanpur

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The additions to income on non-speculative ... Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - estimated the profit on Share Commodity Transaction at 1% - HELD THAT:- There is no any material evidence in respect of its claim except disputing the estimation of 1% made by the Assessing Officer. As the assessee has not filed the Return of Income in the normal course and also in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and consistently not produced any evidence to its claim, the estimation made by the Assessing Officer at 1% does not require any interference and thus the grounds of appeal raised the assessee are dismissed. Issues:1. Addition to income on non-speculative business2. Treatment of bank account of sub broker3. Non-speculative loss for Assessment Year 2011-12Analysis:Issue 1: Addition to income on non-speculative businessThe appellant contested the addition of Rs. 29,41,794 as 1% of total transactions on non-speculative business without considering the gross purchase of share transactions. The Assessing Officer estimated the profit on share commodity transactions at 1% due to non-cooperation from the appellant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to provide material evidence to dispute the estimation made by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim and the consistent non-filing of income tax returns. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.Issue 2: Treatment of bank account of sub brokerThe appellant argued that the bank account of the sub broker should not be considered as the appellant's account. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant failed to provide confirmation from the sub broker or explain the pending/unsettled payments, especially in commodity stock exchange transactions. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the appellant introduced unexplained cash into the system, and the total cash amount could not be taxed in the appellant's hands. The tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was on an estimation basis and within acceptable parameters upheld by various courts, giving the appellant the benefit of doubt.Issue 3: Non-speculative loss for Assessment Year 2011-12The appellant claimed a non-speculative loss of Rs. 21,29,208 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The CIT(A) dismissed this claim, citing the appellant's failure to file income tax returns within the stipulated time and lack of evidence supporting the alleged loss incurred in commodity transactions. The tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the appellant's non-compliance with filing returns and the absence of material evidence to substantiate the claimed loss. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the assessment order was upheld.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2011-12, upholding the additions to income on non-speculative business, treatment of the sub broker's bank account, and denial of the non-speculative loss claim due to lack of evidence and non-compliance with tax filing requirements.