M/S. SHAGUN IMPEX PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 10.10.2025 for the AY 2011-12.

“4. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has indulged in derivative trading in MCX stock exchange and all the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange platform. The learned CIT (A) noted that the learned AO has not found any discrepancy in respect of such trading. The learned CIT (A) further noted that the learned AO has relied only the information received from Investigation Wing that the transactions through M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd were not genuine. Besides the CIT (A) also noted that the director of the said company Sri Sachet Saraf, who gave statement during the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act retracted such statement which was relied upon by the AO. Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the learned AO has not carried out any further investigation. The learned CIT (A) also noted that the learned AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to MCX, however, only part reply was stated to be received nonetheless, the learned AO did not discuss anything about the said report/ reply. The learned CIT (A) also noted that the statement of Sri Sachet Saraf was not given to the assessee nor cross examination was allowed. Thereafter, the learned CIT (A) referred to co-ordinate Bench decision, wherein it has been held that the transactions in current year derivatives through M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd were held to be genuine. Finally, the learned CIT (A) held that there were no corroborative evidences in regard to show that the transactions in current year derivates trading through M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. were not genuine and thus, deleted the same.

“5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the records placed on record. The first issue raised by the revenue is regarding deletion of addition of Rs.1,54,38,794/- made by the AO on account of bogus loss on currency derivative. There was a search and seizure action carried out on 22.03.2013 at the premises of Mari gold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Sachet Saraf, director of the company was alleged to be engaged in providing accommodation entry of bogus loss in currency derivatives and it was informed by the directorate that Mari Gold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered as a commodity broker and is listed with MCX. During the period 16.03.2012 to 20.03.2012 suffered a loss of Rs.1,54,38,794/-. The assessee booked the said loss partly during the year under consideration and remaining in the subsequent period. Revenue has alleged that the said loss is a bogus loss. We further notice that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this issue by observing as follows “"3.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission of the appellant. Assessee has indulged in currency derivative trading at MCX Stock Exchange. All the transactions have been carried out at the MCX Stock Exchange platform and even the AO has in this regard. On the basis of information received from Investigation Wing, AO has concluded that the transactions through M/s. Marigold, Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. were manipulated and not genuine. However, subsequently, the Director of the said company, Sri Sachet Sara] who had given this statement during proceedings u/s.132, had retracted his statement. AO has not carried out any further investigation in this matter although he has pointed out some issues relating to some schedule of payments made by the assessee company to M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. However, these issues are hot sufficient in itself to draw any adverse view regarding the transactions. Assessee has also raised the issue regarding principles of natural Justice and has pointed out that neither the statement of Sri Sachet Saraf was given to the assessee nor opportunity of crossexamination was provided, despite repetitive requests in this regard. Appellant has also cited a

Order pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 28.04.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata