TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that in all these years assessee carried on business of speculative transactions in commodities through NCDEX where no delivery is given/ taken for the commodities traded. It is contended that the speculative transactions through NCDEX are in the nature of only forward / future transactions of commodities like Gold, Silver etc. is done without delivery. In effect only profit / loss accrues from speculative transactions which is accounted for i.e. credited/ debited in the accounts. The total amount of profit from speculative transaction is Rs. 1,02,757/- for A.Y. 2005-06, Rs. 97,941.11 for A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 2,68,554.07 for A.Y. 2008-09 respectively. The accounts of the assessee from speculative business were not audited u/s 44AB of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and not only the profit/loss there from. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of ITAT Lucknow Bench in the assessee of DCIT vs. Gopal Krishan Builders 272 ITR (AT) 1 for the proposition that scope of the words ''Gross Receipts'' was wide and the imposition of penalty was confirmed. 2.3 The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends as under:- (i) There being no delivery of movable property, the ownership in goods transacted through NCDEX is not passed from buyer to seller, therefore, there is no element of sales involved as per Sale of Goods Act. (ii) These transactions cannot be held as turnover in general parlance or in view of the definition of word turnover provided in Indian Companies Act. (iii) The gross rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty u/s 271B imposed by the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to be deleted.'' 2.4 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and contends that the latest decision of ITAT Bombay Bench dated 29th Jan. 2014 in the case Anahaita Nalin Shah Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 7972/Mum/2010 for the assessment year 2004-05), 149 ITD 0171 should be adopted wherein it has been held as under: - ''7. Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had entered into speculative business of the shares that the transactions entered into by her were more than the prescribed monetary limit as envisaged by the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act, that no bonafide reasons were furnished by the assessee, for not attending the books of accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the assessee in reply contends that ITAT Mumbai Bench while passing the above referred judgment has failed to consider the decisions of Coordinate Benches i.e. ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Banwari Sitaram Pasari HUF vs. ACIT and ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Growmor Exports Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner (supra) which were already published decisions. Therefore, the judgement of ITAT Mumabi Bench in the case of Anahaita Nalin Shah Vs. DCIT (supra) is per incuriam. Besides when two views are possible on any issue then the view which is in favour of the assessee should be adopted. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on following decisions. (1) CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973), 88 ITR 192 (SC) (2) CIT vs. ....