TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1863
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taining the treatment given by the A.O. to the income of Rs. 19,00,000. earned by the assessee by way of profit from commodity transaction and duly disclosed in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act and consequently subjecting it to tax u/s 115 BBE of the I.T. Act, which sustaining of the treatment of profit from commodity transaction, duly declared in the return of income filed by the assessee, as unexplained money u/s 69A and thereby sustaining levy of tax thereon u/s 115 BBE of the I.T. Act is most arbitrary, unjust, untenable and liable to be cancelled and in the alternative excessive. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the profit of Rs. 19,00,000 from commodity transaction duly declared in the return of income as profit from commodity business under the head "Profit & Gain of business & profession" can by no canon of law be termed as unexplained money u/s 69A and liable to be taxed u/s 115 BBE. 4. That both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that even at the first instance the appellant during the course of recording of his statement u/s 131 of the I.T. Act on 08/06/2018 by the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2018-19. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 16.04 2021 the assessee has been show cause and asked to explain as to whether the said amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- has been shown in his ITR filed for the A.Y. 2019-20 or not and if the same has been declared in his ITR than in what manner the said income has been shown. He has also been asked to show cause as to why the same should not be considered as his unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 1158BE of the I.T. Act. 1961, in case of failure to make submissions in this regard. In response to that the assessee made his submissions on 22.04.2021 which have been carefully gone through and duly considered. Though, the assessee has stated to have declared an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- as his income for the A.Y 2019-20 earned through commodity business, but no such documentary evidence in this regard has been submitted by the assessee. Further, no cash flow statement has been furnished by the assessee to establish that the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- was available with him on the date of search and that too was out of legitimate sources of income. Therefore, the assessee has failed to prove the nature a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.3 In this connection I take support from a judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Agra Bench in the case of Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle, reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 393 (Agra - Trib.), where it has been held that Section 251, read with section 144, of the Income-tax Act. 1961-Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of [Exparteorder) - Assessment year 2005-06-Despite several notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) assessee did not attend assessment proceedings, nor filed any explanation Assessing Officer therefore, passed an exparte assessment order under section 144 on assessee Further assessee in spite of large number of adjournments granted by Commissioner (Appeals) did not produce any document in respect of grounds of appeal, nor made written or oral submissions before him Commissioner (Appeals), therefore. proceeded ex parte against assessee and confirmed assessment order -Whether both Commissioner (Appeals) and Assessing Officer rightly proceeded ex parte against assessee Held, yes [Para 6) [In favour of revenue) Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In this ground of appeal it is claimed by the appellant that the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and not maintainable in fact and in law. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing arbitrarily and unjustifiably the impugned order and the same is liable to be cancelled. 2. That the impugned order passed u/s. 250(6) of the IT Act by the learned CIT(A) is unjustified and not maintainable in law because it has been passed without complying with the procedure laid down u/s. 250(1) as well as u/s. 250(4) of the IT Act. GROUNDS OF APPEAL No. 2, 3 and 4 In these grounds of appeal the appellant has assailed the sustenance by the Id. CIT(A) of the treatment given by the AO to the income of Rs. 19,00,000 earned by the appellant by way of profit from commodity transaction and duly shown in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act and subjecting it to tax u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. In support of these grounds of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o AY 2019-20) wherein he stated that out of Rs. 52,29,640/- seized from his possession an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- belonged to Rakesh Khivasara (the appellant assessee) and thereafter on 08/06/2018 (relevant to AY 2019-20) statement of appellant Rakesh Khivasara was also recorded wherein the appellant assessee stated that cash amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- seized from Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati during the course of search in the case of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai, Jaipur belonged to him (the appellant assessee). 5. That keeping in view the fact that cash was seized from the above named Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati in the previous year relevant to year under appeal, the addition for alleged unexplained cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- has also been made in AY 2019-20, which is year under appeal. 6. It is further submitted that the assessee was required under the income tax Act to file the return of income for AY 2019-20 i.e. year under appeal, before 30/09/2020 (extended due date due to the Covid-19 Pandemic) and the assessee filed its return of income on 20/12/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 21,40,830/- which inter-alia included profit of Rs. 19,00,000/- from commod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the source of income and the revenue has not challenged that source of income by bringing any contrary finding on the facts he has disclosed in the statement so recorded. The assessee explained the source and purpose of transferring the money. 7. Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the findings recording in the order of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee was doing the trading in MCX and the income was not out of books and therefore, the income be taxed as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. Ld. DR also filed a copy of satisfaction note and statement of Shri Dineshkumar Prajapati and of that of the assessee which was relied upon. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. All the ground no. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee deal with the charging of tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act and therefore, the same is decided together. The Bench noted from the order of the ld. AO that while confirming the charging of the tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act ld. AO in his order noted as under : "Though, the assessee has stated to have declared an amount of Rs.19,00,000 as his income for the assessment year 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffline trading [ question no. 9]. The relevant extract from the statement reads as under:- प्रश्न 9 कृप्या करके रूपये 19 लाख नकद का स्त्रोत बताएँ? उत्तर महोदय जैसा मैं आपको पहले ही बता चुका हूँ कि मैं MCX/NCDX पर offline trading करता हैं उसी से मुझे चालू वि.व में लाभ हुआ था। उसी से मुझे जो पैसे मिले वह मैं Ahmedabad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Satyaveer Singh Vs. CIT(A) [ 154 taxmann.com 619 (Rajasthan) ] involving same set of oral evidence wherein the Hon'ble court held that : "5. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before. it. In order to record a finding of fact against the appellant and in faovur of the Revenue, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the recital contained in the registered sale deed which clearly shows that the sale consideration was Rs. 6.75 lacs. The aspect relating to valuation of the property for the purposes of stamp duty was also taken into consideration but the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and ITAT all recorded concurrent finding placing reliance mainly on the sale deed and recital contained therein. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant-assessee that the entire sale consideration was transferred in the account of the assessee through cheque issued by the purchasers. It is a case of cash deposit. Therefore, the burden was on the assessee to prove that the consideration for sale was Rs. 20,80,000/- and not what was recited in the s....