9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 812X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there had been any escapement of income. CIT(A) has also confirmed the disallowance primarily on the basis of report of the investigation wing. Since the transactions are supported by proper documents and since they cannot be disbelieved based on the generalized report of the investigation wing, we are of the view that the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of F O loss made by the AO. Assessee appeal allowed. - Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Vimal Punamiya Shri Rahul Punmiya For the Revenue : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia ORDER PER B.R. BA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O transactions through the above said broker and incurred losses in the reversal trade to the tune of Rs. 44,79,600/- during the year relevant to AY 2015-16. Such losses were considered to be bogus by the income tax department. Accordingly, the AO reopened the assessment of AY 2015-16. 3. In the reopened assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed loss of Rs. 1,34,95,517/- on F O trading and claimed the same against its business profits. The AO considered the above said loss as bogus in nature and accordingly disallowed the same in the assessment order passed u/s 144 of the Act to the best of his judgement. 4. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the F O transactions were carried out in the normal course of its act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the same have been carried out through banking channels. The assessing officer has not found fault with any of those documents. Further, it is not the case that the assessee itself was subjected to enquiry either by SEBI or by Income tax Department. It is not clear as to whether the broker of the assessee has specifically identified the transactions carried on by the assessee as bogus, in which case, the same should have been put before the assessee for explanation. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in disbelieving the transactions of the assessee merely for the reason that the broker of the assessee was subjected to search for manipulation in F O transactions. There is no material before the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
