- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 6.7.2015, Annexure A.6 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.1177/CHD/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "A. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is not justified in confirming the part of commodity loss of Rs. 4,20,824/- out of Rs. 7,16,617/- (Annexure A.7) arising from genuine and regular dealings all through account payee cheques (Annexure A.8) and for which contract notes/difference in bills produced with registered broker M/s Anand Commodities Trading Services Pvt. Limited (Annexure A.7) whom the Assessing Officer failed to summon as requested by the appellant that Assessing Officer to summon the said representative under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is against trite law that in case on the request of the assessee the Assessing Officer fails to summon the creditors or other concerned person than in that case, no addition can be made on this basis which is against the law laid down in the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of ITA No.685 of 2008 as decided on 17.2.2009 and as reported in 28 DTR 118 (P&H) B. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal and the authorities below are justified in confirming disallowance of commodity loss on the ground that the appellant has not produced any evidence ignoring the account books, complete correspondence with M/s Anand Commodity Services Pvt. Limited a registered broker in the shape of ledger account, contract details, difference in bills, commodity wise, date wise and amount wise (Annexure A.7) and the payments by the appellant and the transactions being through banking channels (Annexure A.8) which is perverse findings of fact against sufficient evidences/material produced and on record therein C. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the authorities below confirming the impugned additions without adhering to various contentions, evidences filed in its true prospective is perverse and illegal
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a stock broker. He filed return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring income at Rs. 19,26,586/-. He is dealing in equity and derivatives trading for his clients and for himself as proprietor of M/s SMS and Co. The commodities trading was done by the appellant through M/s Anand Commodities Services limited during the assessment year 2006-07 from 2.5.2005 to 24.2.2006 and also in various other years. He used to deal through other brokers also. The appellant received notice under section 143 (2) of the Act in response to which he appeared and submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer raised objection regarding trading liability amounting to Rs. 3,95,614/- which was later on deleted by the Tribunal and also regarding commodity loss of Rs. 7,16,617/- incurred by the appellant out of which Rs. 3,16,697/- was for and on behalf of his clients and which was recovered from them while the balance loss of Rs. 4,20,824/- was on account of his own commodity trading loss which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 4.12.2008, Annexure A.1. Against the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which was partly allowed vide order dated 26.2.2009, Anenxure A.2 holding that the addition could be made if there was positive evidence to show that such an entry was an ingenuine entry and that the same was on account of some ingenuine loss and it was adjustment entry to reduce the profit of business of the appellant. The revenue filed appeal against the order dated 26.2.2009, Annexure A.2. Vide order dated 26.6.2009, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer. During the remand proceedings, contract notes and difference bills which were in possession of the appellant were produced before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 13.12.2010, Annexure A.4 held that there was no concrete evidence and therefore confirmed its previous order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appellant filed copies of contract note/difference bills alongwith reply dated 21.3.2013. To verify the genuineness of alleged commodity transactions made by the assessee, a letter dated 3.4.2013 was written by the CIT(A) to the Manager, LSE Commodities Trading Services Limited. However, Ludhiana Commodities Trading Services Limited in reply dated 8.4.2013 intimated that no client as M/s SMS and Company as a client of M/s Anand Commodities Services Limited in the year 2005-06 was existing. After considering the reply dated 30.8.2013, the appellant was directed to present authorized representative of M/s Anand Commodities Trading Services Pvt. Limited for cross examination. The appellant requested for summoning of the concerned persons under section 131 of the Act. However, no action was taken. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.11.2013, Annexure A.5 holding that the appellant failed to lead any evidence in order to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal which was partly allowed vide order dated 6.7.2015, Annexure A.6 upholding the addition of Rs. 4,20,824/-. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and do not find any weight in the contentions raised by him.;