Appeal partly allowed, notice valid, AO's addition reversed, modifications within limits.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 but reversing the addition of Rs. 27,63,104 made by the AO. The Tribunal found that while the assessee used the client code modification facility to transfer transactions and book losses, the modifications were within permissible limits based on a prior decision. The final judgment was pronounced on 23/03/2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148.
2. Confirmation of the addition of Rs. 27,63,104 by the AO, alleging the assessee's involvement in transferring fictitious profits/losses through client code modification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148:

The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The notice was issued based on information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation), which indicated that a loss of Rs. 27,63,104 was created due to modifications in the F&O segment transactions. The notice was issued on 26-03-2015 after recording the reasons, and the reasons were provided to the assessee on 15-04-2015. The assessee raised objections to the initiation of proceedings, which were disposed of by the Department on 28-08-2015. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the notice, and the Tribunal found no plausible reason to challenge this decision. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed Ground No. 1 of the assessee.

2. Confirmation of Addition of Rs. 27,63,104:

2.1 Facts and Findings:

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in trading shares, was found to have used the client code modification facility in the F&O segment on the NSE. The AO alleged that the assessee transferred fictitious profits/losses to its clients, creating a loss of Rs. 27,63,104. The assessee claimed that the modifications were due to genuine mistakes by its staff or brokers and were rectified within the allowed time.

2.2 Arguments by the Assessee:

The assessee argued that the modifications were legitimate corrections of errors made by brokers. They provided evidence that the client code modifications were a small percentage (0.18%) of the total trades and were within the guidelines of the stock exchange. The assessee also cited a decision by the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in ACIT vs. Kunvarji Finance Pvt. Ltd., which held that client code modifications within 1% of total orders were permissible and not unusually high or mala fide.

2.3 Tribunal's Decision:

The Tribunal considered the regularity and volume of the modifications (2380 times involving 55 clients over 197 days) and found the assessee's claim of inadvertent mistakes unconvincing. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in McDowell & Co. Ltd., emphasizing that tax avoidance through artifice or device is not permissible. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee used the client code modification facility to book losses and transfer transactions to clients, thereby compromising real income. The AO's addition of Rs. 27,63,104 was justified, and the Tribunal upheld this addition.

2.4 Conclusion:

However, the Tribunal also noted that the client code modifications were within permissible limits and followed the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench, which allowed similar modifications. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 2 and 2.1 of the assessee, reversing the addition made by the AO.

Final Judgment:

The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, dismissing the challenge to the validity of the notice under Section 148 but allowing the grounds related to the addition of Rs. 27,63,104. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23/03/2017.

---