TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeal, recognizes loss in Future & Options. Emphasizes documentation and natural justice principles.</h1> <h3>M/s. Poddar Rubber Industries Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Guwahati</h3> M/s. Poddar Rubber Industries Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Guwahati - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 29,65,952/- on account of loss claimed by the assessee in Future & Options (F&O) transactions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 29,65,952/- on account of loss claimed by the assessee in Future & Options (F&O) transactions:The assessee appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO regarding the loss claimed in F&O transactions. The AO noted that the assessee had debited a loss of Rs. 29,65,952/- from transactions in the Stock Exchange of F&O, conducted through M/s. Kayan Securities Pvt. Ltd. (M/s. KSPL). The AO relied on statements made by Shri Harshvardhan Kayan, a director of M/s. KSPL, and Shri Mukesh Agarwal, who managed the share trading and accounting for M/s. KSPL, during a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both individuals admitted that M/s. KSPL was involved in providing bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) entries.Despite the assessee's explanation that the transactions were conducted through a recognized stock exchange with payments made through banking channels, the AO dismissed the claim, treating the loss as bogus. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide evidence of past or future transactions and suggesting that the transactions were intended to reduce tax liability.Upon appeal, it was argued by the assessee's representative that the transactions were legitimate, conducted through recognized stock exchanges (BSE & NSE), and supported by proper documentation. The representative contended that the AO and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the evidence without proper justification and relied on statements made during a survey, which are considered weak evidence according to the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. S. Kader Khan & Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC).The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided all necessary documentation to support the F&O transactions, and these were conducted through recognized stock exchanges with payments made through banking channels. The statements of Shri Harshvardhan Kayan and Shri Mukesh Agarwal did not specifically implicate the assessee in any bogus transactions related to F&O. Furthermore, the AO did not provide the assessee with the full statements or an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals, violating principles of natural justice as upheld by the Supreme Court in M/s. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner Central Excise, Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.The Tribunal concluded that the AO and Ld. CIT(A) had based their findings on suspicion and selective extracts from statements that did not directly implicate the assessee. Given the lack of incriminating evidence against the assessee and the proper documentation supporting the transactions, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, thereby accepting the loss claimed by the assessee in F&O transactions.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, and ordered that the loss of Rs. 29,65,952/- claimed in F&O transactions be accepted. The decision highlighted the importance of proper documentation and adherence to principles of natural justice in tax assessments.
TaxTMI 