Sham Sunder Khanna, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1177/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90225 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Transactions in derivatives; Accommodation entries
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1177/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI SHAM SUNDER KHANNA, VS THE ACIT, PROP. SMS & COMPANY, CIRCLE VI, 528, L.S.E. BUILDING, LUDHIANA. F.G. MARKET, LUDHIANA. PAN: ABFPK7991L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAI GOPAL BANS AL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II LUDHIANA DATED 11.11.2013 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, CHALLENGED MAINLY TWO ADDITIONS I.E. (I) ADDITION O F RS. 3,95,614/- ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITIES U NDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT, AND (II) DISALLOWANCE OF COMMODITIES LOSS OF RS. 4,20,824/-. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMEN T IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED ON 04.12.2008. WHILE COMPL ETING 2 THE ASSESSMENT, FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE TO TH E RETURNED INCOME : I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF RS. 3 ,95,614/- LIABILITIES UNDER SECTION 41(1) II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE RS. 4,20, 824/- OF COMMODITY LOSS 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED ORDER BEFORE LD. CIT(APP EALS) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 26.02.2009 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CES SATION OF LIABILITIES AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMODITY LOSS. LATER ON, VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 19,26,586/-. THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS ASSESSEE WE NT IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE CROSS APPEALS IN ITA 481/2009 AND ITA 497/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2009 AND SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJ UDICATION. REGARDING THE ISSUE OF CESSATION OF LIABILITIES, TH E ITAT DIRECTED AS UNDER : IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE BASIC FINDING S REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED FOR DISPOSING OF THE MATTER ARE : I) THAT LIABILITIES REPRESENTED ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY AND ; II) THAT SUCH LIABILITIES HAVE CEASED TO EXIST IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3 5. FURTHER, REGARDING THE ISSUE OF COMMODITY LOSS, ITAT DIRECTED AS UNDER : ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE SHALL PRODUCE THE REQUISITE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED FRE SH PROCEEDINGS. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 3,95,61 4/- UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CESSAT ION OF LIABILITY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LIABILI TY REPRESENTED THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS AS MARGIN MONEY TO CARRY OUT THE TRANSACTIONS ON THEIR BEHALF. NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION WAS EVER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE OUTSTANDING SUMS. THE SE LIABILITIES HAD NOT CEASED TO EXIST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE LIABILITIES WERE SETTLED DURI NG THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 7. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,20,824/-, B EING LOSS ON SALE OF COMMODITIES, ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF THE CONTRACT NOTES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT REP LY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS ALMOST SIMILAR AS WA S FILED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO CONCR ETE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACC ORDINGLY, MADE BOTH THE ADDITIONS AGAIN. 4 8. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED BOTH ADDITIONS BEFORE LD . CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SIMILARLY SUBMITTED THAT PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVE D ADVANCES FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND LIABILITIES NEVER C EASED TO EXIST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS REGA RDS LOSS ON SALE OF COMMODITIES, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COPIE S OF THE ACCOUNTS AND BILLS WERE PLACED ON RECORD WHICH PROV ES THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS. THEREFORE, ADDITION SHOUL D NOT BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ABOVE, FOUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T EXAMINED THE ISSUES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TR IBUNAL. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMIN E THESE ISSUES AS WERE DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-EXAMINED BOTH THE ISSU ES AND CALLED FOR THE REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH ASS ESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS ALREADY MADE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SCHEDULE OF SUNDRY CREDI TORS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THESE LIABILITIES UND ER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THESE LIABILITIES UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CRED ITORS THERE IS NO REASON TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE. AS REGAR DS GENUINENESS OF THE COMMODITY LOSS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS WRITTEN LETTER TO THE MANAGER, LSE COMMODITIES 5 TRADING SERVICE LTD., LUDHIANA SEEKING DETAILS OF TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS CLI ENT. THE LUDHIANA COMMODITY TRADING SERVICES LTD. INTIMATED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO CLIENT IN THE NAME OF M/S SMS & CO. PROPRIETOR SHAM SUNDER KHANNA (ASSESSEE) IS REGISTERED AS A CLIENT WITH M/S ANAND COMMODITIES SERVICES LTD. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HEN CE, NO ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PERSON IS APPEARING IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THEM. THEREFORE, NO TRANSACT ION WAS ALSO NOTICED BETWEEN THEM. IT WAS ALSO REPORTE D THAT NO COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT, EI THER BY M/S ANAND COMMODITIES SERVICES LTD. OR M/S SMS & CO ., PROPRIETOR SHAM SUNDER KHANNA (ASSESSEE) IN THE NAM E OF PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE NOTES BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW T HAT NO GENUINE LOSS HAS BEEN SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FILED THE REPORT BEFORE LD. CIT(A PPEALS) ACCORDINGLY AND ALSO CONFRONTED THE SAME FACTS TO T HE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REPORTED THAT INITIALLY WHEN FACT S WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE R EPLY AND ALSO DID NOT APPEAR. FURTHER REPLY WAS FILED ON TH E SAME LINE AS WAS SUBMITTED EARLIER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THEREFORE, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO CONCRETE EVID ENCE TO EXPLAIN BOTH THE ISSUES AND SUMMARY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF PARTIES AGAINST WHOM OUTSTANDING BALANCES HAVE BEEN SHOWN IS NOTED AT PAGE 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO SHOW THAT BALANCES WERE COMING FROM THE EARLIER YEAR. 6 11. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE, FACTS ON RECORD AND REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE LIABILITIES UN DER REFERENCE WERE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE TO BE TRADE ADVA NCES RECEIVED BY THE CLIENTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THESE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS IN EARLIER YEAR S. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE COPIES OF THE ACCO UNTS PERTAINING TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THESE WERE RECEIVED . THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION WAS EVER CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THESE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES, HOWEVER NO EVIDENCE IN THI S REGARD WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND CONTRARY. THE PERUSAL OF THE C OPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORT THE CLAI M THAT ACCOUNTS WERE SQUARED UP IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WOULD REVEAL THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CASH RECEIPTS SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THESE AMOUN TS ARE SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), O N THE BASIS OF ABOVE FACTS, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT B EEN ABLE TO PROVE THE CONTENTION THAT AMOUNTS WERE NOT TRADI NG LIABILITIES AND NO DEDUCTION OF LOSS OR EXPENDITURE WITH REGARD TO THESE CREDITS HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN THE EAR LIER YEAR. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECT ION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 12. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WITH REGARD TO LOSS ON AC COUNT OF COMMODITY FOUND THAT THE ENQUIRIES FROM LUDHIANA ST OCK 7 EXCHANGE REVEALED THAT LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE. MERE PRODUCTION OF CONTRACT NOTES FROM M/ S ANAND COMMODITIES SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND PAYMENT OF CHEQUE WOULD NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS IN T HE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES RECEIVED FROM LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHA NGE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE LOS S AND ACCORDINGLY, THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO CONFIRMED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND LD. DR RELIED UPON ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(AP PEALS) GOT THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED AT APPELLATE STAGE ALSO WHICH PROVED THE FACTS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, BOTH ADDITIONS MAY BE CONFIRMED. 13(I) ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DE CIDE BOTH THE ISSUES. AS REGARDS ADDITION UNDER SECTION 41(1 ) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE S AID LIABILITIES REPRESENTED THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS AS MARGIN MONEY TO CARRY OUT THE TRANSACTIO NS ON THEIR BEHALF. NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION WAS EVER C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE OUTSTANDING SUM S. THESE LIABILITIES HAD NOT CEASED TO EXIST DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CLAIMED TH AT SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT VERIFI ED THE 8 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND GONE THROUGH THE COP IES OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I.E. SCHEDULE OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING ON 31.03.2005 AND 31.03.2006 AND EXAMINED THE SAME. PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THESE LIABILITIES UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONS AR E 8. IN RESPECT OF 6 PARTIES, THE AMOUNTS WERE SAME OUTSTAN DING AS ON 31.03.2005 WHICH WERE CARRIED FORWARD IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 31.03.2006. IN R ESPECT OF TWO PERSONS, DALJIT KUMAR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, THER E WERE FRESH DEPOSITS. THE LIST IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 7 O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THESE WERE THE OLD BALANCES CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER Y EARS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF TWO PARTIES. REFER TO PAGE 1 4 OF ORDER ALSO. THE ASSESSEE, TIME AND AGAIN HAS BEEN REITER ATING THAT THESE WERE OLD BALANCES AND THERE WERE NO CESS ATION OF LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ADVA NCES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENT AS MARGIN MONEY. EVE N IN THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS NOTED THA T ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES IN ACCOUNTS IN RE SPECT OF THESE PERSONS FOR LONG. EVEN THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT DISPUTE THIS FACTS THAT THESE WERE OUTSTANDING LIAB ILITIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUNDRY CRE DITORS. 9. ON CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOTED ABOVE , IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONTINUED TO SHOW THE ADMIT TED AMOUNTS AS LIABILITY IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. THE LIA BILITIES 9 REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET COULD NOT BE TREATED AS CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH I N THE CASE OF NITIN S. GARG V ACIT 40 SOT 253 HELD AS UND ER : CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED ABOVE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTINUED TO SHOW THE ADMITTED AMOUNTS AS LIABILITIES IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. THE LIABILITIES REF LECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET COULD NOT BE TREATED AS CESSATION OF LIA BILITIES. MERELY BECAUSE THE LIABILITIES WERE OUTSTANDING FOR L AST MANY YEARS, IT COULD NOT BE INFERRED THAT THE SAID LIABILITIES HAD CEASED TO EXIST. IT WAS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT WRITTEN OFF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES WERE STILL IN EXISTENCE WHICH WOUL D PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACKNOWLEDGED HIS LIABILITIES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SECTION 41(1) IS ATTRACTED WHEN THERE IS CESSATION OR REMISSION OF A TRADING LIABILITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING LIABILITIES BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CE SSATION THEREOF. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND BALANCES WERE CARRIE D FORWARD IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WOULD NOT PROVE THAT THE TR ADING LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME NON-EXISTENT. I T MAY ALSO BE NOTED IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURE IN ALL THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL THEREFORE, IT WAS TO BE OPINED THAT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 41(L)(A.) HAD WRONGLY BEEN APPLIED IN THE MAT TER. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF PART ICULARS OF PAYMENTS OF LIABILITIES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHICH WERE IN THE NATURE OF ADJUSTMENT THROUGH JOURNAL ENTRY, CAS H PAYMENT AND SOME PAYMENTS BY BANKING CHANNEL THE REVENUE OBJ ECTED TO THE FILING OF SUCH DETAILS AT THE INSTANT STAGE AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT BY CASH AND JOURNAL ENTR Y WOULD NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS. THE REVENUE 'S SUBMISSION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THOSE DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE BENCH DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND EVEN 10 PAYMENTS BY CHEQUES AND/OR JOURNAL ENTRY WOULD NOT AB SOLVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING OUT A CASE UNDER SECT ION 41(1). 10. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT IN THE CASE OF NIT IN S. GARG VS ACIT (SUPRA), TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SITA DEVI JUNEJA 187 TAXM AN 96 (P&H) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. CON SIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF NITIN S. GARG (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VI EW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS WHOLLY UNJUST IFIED. EVEN THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER H AVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND NO SPECIFIC FINDINGS HAVE BE EN GIVEN FOR THE SAME. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3, 95,614/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. AS REGARDS THE LOSS OF COMMODITY IS CONCERNED , THE ENQUIRIES FROM LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE REVEALED THA T CLAIM OF LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF COMMODITY TRANSACTION W AS NOT A GENUINE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE MERELY PRODUCED COPY OF NOTES FROM M/S ANAND COMMODITY SERVICES, WOULD NOT PROVE THAT ASSESSEE SUFFERED GENUINE LOSS. THE EVID ENCES COLLECTED FROM LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE AND CONFRONT ED TO THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY PROVED THAT THE COMMODITY TRAN SACTION WAS NOT ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT BUT WAS MERELY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. EARLIER THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER DIRECTED 11 THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE REQUISITE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY REQUISITE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS IN QUESTION. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIF IED IN MAINTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,20,824/-. THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 12. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 13. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 TH JULY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 6 TH JULY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH