TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2 & 3 with sub-grounds read as under: "2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 2.61 crores, on a ground different from the ground on which the addition was made. 2.2. It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, such action was bad in law. 3.1. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the loss of Rs. 2.61 crores incurred by the appellant was 'speculation loss' and consequently, the same was not eligible for set off against the business income of the appellant. 3.2. It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law no such action was called for and the loss of Rs. 2.61 crores was required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essman would indulge in such transactions. According to the AO, the whole gold trading accounts is a sham. The AO accordingly added Rs. 2.51 crores to the total income of the assessee. 5. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. However, while dismissing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the impugned transactions were of speculative in nature as per Sec. 43(5) of the Act. Infact the First Appellate Authority allowed an opportunity to the assessee to explain why the transaction should not be treated as speculative in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that no evidence whatsoever was furnished as to how and when the delivery was taken. The Ld. CIT(A) finally concluded by dismissing the appeal and hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not have money to make the payment for purchases, then the conduct of the assessee is suggestive of speculation. Undisputedly, the purchase and sales are supported by respective invoices. The transactions have also been confirmed by the respective parties. However, at the same time we find that the impugned transactions have not been verified by the AO from the respective parties which is a clear distinguishing factor from the facts of the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case the parties were produced before the AO as mentioned at page-8 of the order of the Tribunal. We also find that in that case the AO has issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act to the dealers f....