SANJAY KUMAR BUCHA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") dated 06/02/2015 in ITA No.1897/Ahd/2011 for the Assessment Year 2008 -09, the appellant -assessee has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law;

(2.) The assessee claiming to be engaged in the business of dealing in shares and derivatives (Future & Option) during the year besides the business of textile trading activities filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2008 -09 declaring the total income at Rs.2,95,019/ -. The case was process under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28/08/2009. During the course of the assessment and on the basis of the AIR information it was found that the assessee was holding a bank account with Prime Co -operative Bank Ltd, Main Branch, Khatodra, Surat and had deposited the cash totaling to Rs.37,75,000/ - on various dates and, therefore, letter under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said Bank on 30/09/2010 asking to furnish the bank statement of account held by the assessee. As per the details furnished by the said bank it was found that the assessee was holding the bank account bearing No.10011001005255, in which the cash deposits on various dates were made. The assessee was served upon the show cause notice dated 21/12/2010 and was asked to show cause as to how the cash deposit of Rs.37,75,000/ - should not be added to the assessee total income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted his reply. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied and / or convinced by the explanation furnished by the assessee with respect to the cash deposit of Rs.37,75,000/ - deposited in the unaccounted bank account and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.37,75,000/ - under Section 69A of the Act.

(3.) Shri Ketan Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in confirming the order passed by the learned CIT(A) with respect to the claim of the assessee with respect to loss of Rs.56,99,495/ -. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the assessee had discharged the onus for incurring the loss in reference to the share transactions of F & O by way of furnishing contract note, address and PAN No. of the respective two parties with whom the transactions were done. It is submitted that since the appellant had discharged the onus regarding the loss incurred of Rs.56,99,495/ -, the learned Tribunal ought not to have worked out the peak as well as the profit at the rate of 5%.