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 upholds assessment order under Income Tax Act, directs deletion of income addition due to client code modification.</h1> <h3>Shri Chintan Jaswantbhai Shah Versus I.T.O, Ward-5 (3) (1), Ahmedabad.</h3> Shri Chintan Jaswantbhai Shah Versus I.T.O, Ward-5 (3) (1), Ahmedabad. - [2021] 87 ITR (Trib) 228 (ITAT [Ahm]) Issues Involved:1. Validity of assessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.2. Addition of income due to client code modification.Issue 1 - Validity of assessment order under section 147:The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The Assessee argued that the reopening based on client code modification was not valid. The Assessee relied on previous orders to support this claim. The Revenue contended that the reopening was justified based on information from the investigation wing. The Tribunal noted a High Court decision supporting the Revenue's position and upheld the reopening under section 147, dismissing the Assessee's appeal on this ground.Issue 2 - Addition of income due to client code modification:The Assessee contested the addition of Rs. 12,67,380 on account of client code modification by the broker to shift profit. The Assessee argued that the AO did not provide the investigation report used for the addition. The Assessee claimed that client code modifications were permissible within SEBI guidelines for genuine mistakes. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the modifications were not inadvertent errors but systematic tax evasion. The Tribunal noted that client code modifications should be investigated thoroughly, including examining cash transfers between parties involved. As no such investigation was conducted by the lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (A) decision and directed the AO to delete the addition. Consequently, the Assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed partially.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order under section 147 but directed the deletion of the addition made due to client code modification, partially allowing the Assessee's appeal.
TaxTMI 