TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,99,999/- made by the A.O. as income of the appellant u/s. 68 of the Act on alleged grounds. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not properly appreciating the facts of the case with regard to the appellant's having income from commodity and treating the same as unexplained cash credit. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. for carry forward of the business loss of Rs. 67,359/- instead of setting it off with the income of the appellant of the year under consideration. 5. For that there has been delay in submission of this appeal by the appellant for which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the brokers' details, the evidence of income received by the assessee through banking channel etc. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, made necessary enquiries and issued summons to the brokers. However, the concerned brokers did not turn up. The Assessing Officer further made enquiry from the National Multi Commodity Exchange of India (in short 'NMCE'). The NMCE vide letter dated 09.11.2017 informed that the assessee was not a registered customer with it. The Assessing Officer, therefore, observed that since the assessee was not a registered customer with the NMCE and the brokers had not turned up to confirm the transactions, he therefore concluded that the aforesaid income shown by the assessee as commodity profit, was unacco....