JEMISH SHAH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(2), KOLKATA

MA No.204/Kol/2019 & Jenish Shah. Vs. ITO Wd-35(2), Kol. Page 2 2. The assessee’s only grievance in the instant miscellaneous application is that the tribunal’s order in issue dated 25.06.2019 suffers from an apparent error and since it has not adjudicated the issue of sec. 68 addition amounting to ₹3,70,861/- relating to commodity transactions profits.

I find from a perusal of tribunal’s order that the assessee’s latter grievance to this effect has remained unadjudicated. I therefore re-call my order dated 26.06.2019 to this limited extent. This assessee’s miscellaneous application No.204/Kol/2019 is accepted.

With the consent of both the parties, I proceed to take up the assessee’s substantive grievance in the main appeal today (01.11.2019) itself. Case file suggests that although the assessee had produced on record all the relevant evidence in support of commodity transactions deriving profit of ₹3,70,861/- , the same stood treated as bogus since lower authorities could not verify the same from the registered broker as well as the commodity exchange; simultaneously. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the assessee’s detailed paper book running into 27 pages including the transactions statement, share bills, contract notes and bank statement to this effect. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute the clinching fact that all these evidence has not been dealt with in either of the lower authority’s orders. I therefore deem it appropriate to restore the instant issue back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee shall appear on its own before the Assessing Officer on or before 30.04.2020 alongwith a copy of this order. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.