2017 (12) TMI 1402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Traders Prop. of assessee (Leela Devi Bumb). Assessee had not disclosed these transactions in her return of income. Assessee had also deposited case of Rs. 56,30,000/- in here bank a/c held with SBBJ Bijainagar. AO made addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- and CIT(A) had confirmed the additions. Now, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal that reads as under:- "Under the facts & circumstances of case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the business/ trading of M/s Pankaj Trader as of assessee though assessee is only SUBBROKER in MCDX/ NCDX. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- u/s 69. 3. That further Ld. CIT(A) ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bmissions made before the lower authorities and reiterated that the assessee was a sub-broker and the margins were received in cash from clients which were deposited in the bank accounts. The assessee has not opened any client's accounts, as per the direction/guidance of SEBI. The persons who were examined by the income tax authorities were also failed to produce any supporting evidence with regard to the transactions claimed to have been done through the assessee as sub-brokers. It is also a pertinent to note that all persons denied having any bank account, PAN No., except Shri Prakash Bumb who is husband of the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that no bills were issued to the clients for commodities transactions. In the statement re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posits of Rs. 56,30,000/- as unexplained investment of the appellant is held to be fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. The appellant has also argued that loss of Rs. 55,69,580/- incurred by the appellant on transactions carried out through NCDX and MCX should be allowed against the addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- made by the AO u/s 69. I have considered this argument of appellant carefully. It is an undisputed fact that loss of Rs. 55,69,580/- is a loss sustained in a speculation business. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the set-off of this loss cannot, be allowed against the income of Rs. 56,30,000/- taxed u/s 69 because section 73(1) clearly provides that "Any loss, computed in respect speculatio....