Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Decision on Unsustainable Addition for Undisclosed Trading Profits Due to Lack of Evidence.

The appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16 was dismissed, with the Tribunal's decision being upheld. The Tribunal found that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for undisclosed profit/loss from trading on MCX/NCDEX was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The AO's reliance on Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was deemed inapplicable. The appellant's arguments, based on material allegedly showing ownership of the money, were insufficient. The application for condonation of delay in re-filing was dismissed as infructuous, and the case was closed.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, sustainability of addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding undisclosed profit/loss from trading in pulses and menthe on MCX/NCDEX.

Summary:
The appellant sought to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition made by the AO concerning undisclosed profit/loss from trading in pulses and menthe. The AO concluded that the profit/loss was booked in connivance with an entity named Raj Laxmi Commodities Private Limited and that Raj Laxmi had given a User ID to an employee of another company. The AO invoked Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to make the addition in the hands of the respondent and the Sharp Group of Companies Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that since nothing incriminating was found during a search and survey, the provision was not applicable. The appellant argued that material recovered showed the respondent was the owner of the money, but the order was based on a statement from a director of Raj Laxmi. As no incriminating material was found during the search, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. The Tribunal's order was upheld based on this aspect, and the appeal was closed accordingly.

Judge's Conclusion:
The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was deemed correct, and no other substantial question of law required adjudication. The application for condonation of delay in re-filing was rendered infructuous and closed. Parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

---