DEBASIS MUKHOPADHYAY,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O., WARD - 61(1),, KOLKATA

The only issue is raised by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ₹ 4,01,687/- as made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income from commodity transactions.

The facts in brief are that the AO reopened the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2008 after receiving information that the assessee had booked bogus commodity profit of ₹3,80,500/-. Assessee filed return of Debasis Mukhopadhyay income in compliance on 25.10.2018. Thereafter, the notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and replied by the assessee. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that he never executed any transactions in multiple commodity exchange through broker Kalkut Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. and even stated that he did not know about the above mentioned broker. However, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the income of the assessee of ₹ 4,01,687/- as undisclosed income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

After hearing the rival contention and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has denied transactions with the said broker during the assessment proceedings. We also note that the said broker Kalkut Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 14.01.2019 issued a confirmation that the said broker had uploaded wrong PAN details on the commodity exchange UCC platform informing the assessee that the said trades belonged to Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarda and not to the assessee. In view of the said fact, the orders passed by the lower authorities can not be sustained. Therefore we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.