NAVIN PURI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

order : July 12, 2021 ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 against the order dated 21.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’).

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.

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Navin Puri 6. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.” 3. Ground Nos.1,2&3 - From a perusal of the above grounds of appeal

, it reveals that the only issue is relating to the treatment of income of Rs.1,99,999/- as to whether the same is a business income of the assessee from the commodity profit or the same is required to be assessed as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.

4. The appeal is time barred by 571 days. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. Mr. Kochar, the ld. counsel for the assessee, has submitted that the order of the CIT(A) was received by the assessee in the month of July 2019 and that the assessee at that time faced family problems as his both parents expired during the period. Further, the assessee was also prevented with sufficient cause because of the problems/restrictions faced during Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the above submissions, the delay of filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned.

5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown the aforesaid income of Rs.1,99,999/- as income from commodity profit. On being explained to prove the genuineness of transaction, the assessee furnished the necessary details such as 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 unaccounted income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and added the same into the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further denied the benefit Assessment Year: 2015-16 Navin Puri of brought forward losses of Rs.62,359/- to the assessee against the aforesaid income declared by the assessee.

6. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus the assessee has come in appeal before this Tribunal.

7. I have considered the rival contentions of ld. representatives of the parties. The Assessing Officer has made the addition observing that the brokers did not come up to verify the transactions. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has wide powers to summon witnesses and call for confirmation of the transactions from concerned witnesses/parties. He has further submitted that the assessee had duly carried out commodity transactions and if the brokers had not turned up, the assessee should not be faulted with the same, rather, the Assessing Officer may be directed to properly verify the transactions by summoning/calling upon for confirmation from the concerned brokers.