TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment Year 2015-16. 2. Since the underlying facts in issues are identical in both these appeals, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grievances of the Revenue in ITA No. 2421/DEL/2022 read as under: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding the statement of Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, Director of M/s Rajlaxmi Commodities to be unreliable by holding his statement as inconsistent and contradictory in various parts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in ignoring the fact that it's commonplace that the value of the actual physical transactions and the ones taken on the derivatives market don't match up.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] were conducted by the Investigation Wing of the department on 07.04.2017 in Sharp group of cases. The premises of the assessee were also covered and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 5. During the course of survey operation u/s 133A of the Act conducted at the premises of M/s Rajlaxmi Commodities Pvt Ltd on 29.12.2015, it was found that M/s Rajlaxmi Commodities Pvt Ltd has allocated different User IDs to different persons including Sharp Group in the name of Shri Babu Lal Jangid as User ID USR-3. 6. The Assessing Officer records that on the direction of Shri Sanjay Singhal, Managing Director of Sharp Group of Companies, Shri Naresh Aggarwal, director, allocate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order at pages 29 to 32. 12. The reply of the assessee was simply rubbished by the Assessing Officer who proceeded by making strong allegation based upon his surmises and conjectures and came to the conclusion that provisions of section 69A are applicable in the case of the assessee and proceeded by making substantive addition of Rs. 11,35,85,032/- in the hands of Shri Sanjay Singh and to protect the interest of the revenue, protective addition was made in the hands of Sharp group u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 13. Additions were challenged before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the first challenge was in respect of assessment framed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act on the ground that a complete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statement of Shri Naresh Aggarwal and came to the conclusion that the same cannot be relied upon. 18. In so far as transaction sheet USR-3 is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that ownership of the transaction does not depend as to who executed the transaction at the Exchange or who has access to User ID which is normally the broker, his employee or approved user. The transaction neither belongs to the user nor the person who has executed the transaction on the Exchange as they all are working on the instructions of their client. 19. If the client code of M/s Rajlaxmi Commodities Pvt Ltd was used at the time of executing the transactions at MCX, then the profit/loss would belong to M/s Rajlaxmi Commodities Pvt Ltd a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Shri Sanjay Singhal nor on protective basis in the hands of Sharp Group. 25. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and once again heavily relied upon the statement of Shri Naresh Aggarwal which is extracted in the body of the assessment order. 26. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 27. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the substantive as well as protective additions have been made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, it would be pertinent to understand the provisions of section 69A of the Act, which read as under: "Unexplained mone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been invoked for A.Y 2015-16 which is under consideration because u/s 69A of the Act, addition can be made in the year in which asset etc is found and since no such asset was found during the course of search, section 69A of the Act cannot be applied to the alleged loss. 30. The entire assessment is based upon the statement of Shri Naresh Aggarwal, which is extracted in the body of the assessment order itself. 31. We have carefully perused each and every question therein. We find that there is not even a whisper about Shri Sanjay Singhal, the assessee. In fact, for every specific question relating to the impugned transaction, Shri Naresh Aggarwal stated that he is not aware of the same and correct person is Shri Padam Chand Gupta ....