9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied out by broker to correct genuine punching errors. No evidence has been filed by the assessee either before the Revenue authorities or even before me to substantiate this contention that CCM was done to rectify punching errors. We agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee was unable to establish the genuineness of its transactions in the light of adversarial material available with the Revenue showing that the losses returned were manipulated by CCM. It is settled principle of law that concurrent findings of the authorities cannot be interfered with without sufficient and just reason or any material irregularities in the finding being pointed out by other side. There is nothing more before me to depart from the view taken by the Revenue authorities on this issue, more so, in the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee in regard to the issue involved in the ground raised. Speculation loss - reason for addition is non-furnishing of supporting details and evidences to demonstrate speculation loss - HELD THAT:- While upholding the order of the AO, CIT(A) has recorded a finding that during the assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O has erred in making an addition of Rs. 4,00,252 on the ground that the appellant had modified Client codes with a malafide intention. 2. In law and in the circumstances of the case the Ld AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.4,00,252 on the ground of client code modification by calculating the profit/loss on notional basis. 3. In law and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the speculation loss of Rs. 7,74,799. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business, speculation and other source and having share trading account with Amrapali Capital Fiancial Services Ltd. (AC FSL) (Broker). During search action carried out on AC FSL under section 132 of the Act and subsequent assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the broker was indulging in manipulation of client code with malafide intention to enable its clients to avoid payment of taxes on F O transaction and the assessee was one of the beneficiaries. The AO had information that using Client Code Modification(CCM) the assessee had shifted out profits of Rs.46,587/- and shifted losses of Rs.3,53,665/- resulting in net reduction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument of the appellant is as follows: (i) The modifications were carried out by the broker to rectify genuine punching errors and no malafide could be attached to the same (ii) The AO has calculated amount of escaped profit/loss on the basis of assumption and no working has been provided regarding price adopted. (iv) The modified transactions are carried out on recognised stock exchange and the persons who are the modified clients must have accounted for the said transactions in their respective books of accounts. In support his contentions, the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon. Jurisdictional ITAT bench of Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Kunvarji Finance Private Limited [IT(SS)A Nos. 615 to 618, 677 to 680, 813-817 of 2010 IT(SS)A 301 302/2011 C0250 to 253 of 2010 CO 313 to 315, 342 to 346 of 2010]. A perusal of submissions of the appellant shows that the submissions are very general in nature. The appellant has not been able to refute the allegations of the AO which are specific. The AO has given specific transactions where profit has been shifted by CCM. The appellant has failed to adduce any evidence to show that he has not benefited by these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.3,53,665/- resulting in net reduction in income due to CCM of Rs.4,00,252/-. When the assessee was asked to submit information and details about the genuineness of the transaction, he was unable to do so before both the authorities, and accordingly the addition of the net benefit accruing to the assessee on account of CCM of Rs.4,00,252/- was added to his income which addition in turn was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Before me also, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee to rebut the finding of the Revenue with some material evidence. After going through the orders of both the authorities, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A) so as to warrant interference. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) noted the fact that the AO had given specific transactions where profit had been shifted by CCM and the assessee had adduced no evidence to show that he had not benefited from the same. He also noted that on becoming aware of CCM by broker, the assessee did not take any corrective action by objecting to the Broker. The Ld.CIT(A) also noted that the director of the Broker Company ACFSL had stated that CCM was misused by his clients. Moreover, I agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of the Revenue authorities, and drew my attention to para 8.3 of the CIT(A) s order to support his case. 8.3 After considering findings of the AO and submissions of the appellant his ground is adjudicated as under: It is seen that the AO noted that the appellant had claimed speculation loss of Rs. 7,74,799/-. When the AO asked the appellant to file the details for the same, the appellant filed only bills related to F 0 transactions only. No other details were filed to enable the AO to verify the genuineness of claim of speculation loss. Accordingly, the AO disallowed speculation loss of Rs.7,74,799/ and added the same to the income of the appellant. During the appeal proceedings the main contention of the appellant was that the AO accepted the credit side of the speculative transactions while disallowed the debit side. The appellant submitted that during the year under consideration the appellant as per the normal accounting practice had recorded the intraday transactions in single ledger. The appellant submitted that credit entries came to Rs.7,26,930/- while total debit side came to Rs.7,74,798/-. Thus the appellant submitted that it had incurred loss of Rs.47 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
