Case Law Details
Leela Devi Bumb Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Assessee, an individual, entered into commodity exchange transactions, but she did not disclose these transactions in her return of income. She had also deposited cash in her bank account. AO made addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same was confirmed by CIT(A). She filed an appeal against the order on the ground that she was a sub-broker and the cash deposited in the bank belong to her clients. But assessee has not able to file any documentary evidence with regard to the nature and source of the cash deposits in her bank account of Rs. 56,30,000/-. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly sustained the additions.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) Ajmer, dated 29.09.2016 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The return of income filed on 25.12.2013 declared income at Rs. 1,82,390/-. The assessee had entered into commodity exchange transactions totaling to Rs. 7,38,08,37,087/- in name of assessee and Pankaj Traders Prop. of assessee (Leela Devi Bumb). Assessee had not disclosed these transactions in her return of income. Assessee had also deposited case of Rs. 56,30,000/- in here bank a/c held with SBBJ Bijainagar. AO made addition of Rs. 56,30,000/- and CIT(A) had confirmed the additions.
Now, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal that reads as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
