2018 (3) TMI 731 - AT - Income Tax

Loss claim arising from MCX trading difference - speculation loss OR normal business loss - Held that - Assessee s loss in question arising from its transactions carried out in MCX are not delivery based since not executed in a recognized exchange. It fails to dispute the fact that the relevant exchange i.e. MCX stock exchange stood recognized w.e.f. financial year 2013-14. It has come on record that in case of Vimal Oil & Foods Ltd. (2015 (8) TMI 70 - ITAT AHMEDABAD) has followed assessee s case itself in preceding assessment year 2011-12 as held that such a subsequent notification of stock exchange covers preceding assessment years as well. This is not the Revenue s case that the CIT(A) s identical findings in preceding assessment year 2011-12 have not attained finality. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of loss claim arising from MCX trading difference as speculation loss.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Disallowance of loss claim arising from MCX trading difference as speculation loss:

The Revenue filed quantum and penalty appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders treating the assessee's normal business loss of ?42,55,595/- from hedging transactions at MCX as speculation loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss claim, stating the transactions were non-delivery based and not carried out in a recognized exchange under section 43(5)(d) of the Act. The CIT(A) reversed this action, citing a precedent judgment and holding that the transactions were allowable as normal business loss with retrospective effect from 1-4-2006. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance, following the precedent judgment and holding that the transactions through MCX after 1-4-2006 should be treated as non-speculative derivatives under section 43(5). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the MCX stock exchange was recognized from the financial year 2013-14 and that the CIT(A)'s findings in the preceding assessment year had attained finality. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, maintaining judicial consistency.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The Tribunal held that since the quantum disallowance/addition was deleted, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) had no basis to stand. The Tribunal decided to follow the same order as in the quantum appeal, dismissing the Revenue's consequential penalty appeal. Consequently, both of the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the penalty was not upheld due to the deletion of the quantum disallowance.

---