BOBBY YOGENDRA SHARMA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 04.08.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2013-14.

Bobby Yogendra Sharma; A.Y. 2013-14 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:

1. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.12,08,94,098/- to the income of the Appellant without taking due cognizance, inter alia, of the following: a) The Assessing Officer had not provided the specific details of the transactions said to be entered into by the appellant and which aggregated to Rs.12,08,94,098/- which were stated to be reported in Annual Information Report; b) The Assessing Officer did not provide the above details despite specific written requests by the appellant; c) The Assessing Officer did not even bother to respond to Appellant’s request for the details; d) Not the entire value of transactions can be considered as income of the appellant but only the profit or income embedded in these transactions can, at most, be considered as income. Though, there is an element of guess work in a “best judgement assessment , it cannot be wild but should have nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. 2) Without prejudice to Ground 1 above & without admitting the additions so made, the learned CIT (A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow set off of loss of Rs. 579,432/- as per the Return of Income filed; especially when the said loss has been admitted and not disallowed by the Assessing Officer.”