2016 (1) TMI 1228 - AT - Income Tax

Genuineness of Speculative loss - assessee is engaged in the business of broking and dealing in commodities - Held that - The assessee is a registered non-member of Exchange; Shri Bharatkumar Ishwarlal Patel is a member of ACEL through which the transactions have been carried out which is not disputed by the Assessing Officer in the remand reports. ACEL permits such transactions under its domain. In view of these facts and circumstances I hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee by elaborate observations discussions and reasons which cannot be found fault with. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of speculative loss as genuine without proper supporting evidence.
2. Alleged speculative transaction through a third party without margin money.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to treat a speculative loss as genuine despite lack of proper supporting evidence. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the claimed loss, stating it was bogus as the transactions were not done through recognized commodity exchanges, lacked supporting evidence, and no margin money was paid. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, including evidence showing the transactions were carried out through an approved exchange. The CIT(A) ultimately accepted the appellant's contentions, noting the transactions were genuine and carried out through the approved exchange, leading to the deletion of the disallowance.

2. The Revenue also raised concerns about the alleged speculative transaction through a third party without margin money. The CIT(A) found that the transactions were indeed carried out through an approved exchange, with necessary evidence provided and confirmed by the third party involved. The CIT(A) highlighted that the appellant was a non-member of the exchange, permitted to trade through members like the third party involved. The absence of margin money was explained based on the nature of the transactions. The CIT(A) concluded that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the legitimacy of the transactions, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the CIT(A) carefully analyzed the evidence presented, considered the nature of the transactions, and made a well-reasoned decision in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the lack of evidence provided by the Revenue to dispute the genuineness of the transactions. The appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of the speculative loss and alleged speculative transactions.