2021 (5) TMI 538 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal, directs reassessment on specific issues, sets aside speculative profits, disallows losses, and recalculates interest.

M/s. Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle 4 (3), Mumbai

M/s. Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle 4 (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of invoking Section 144 and making best judgment assessment.2. Applicability of presumptions under Sections 292C and 132(4A) for routine assessments.3. Use of third-party information without inspection or cross-examination.4. Addition of Rs. 81,15,850/- for profits from money market operations.5. Addition of Rs. 1,92,05,630/- and Rs. 97,29,79,373/- for speculative profit on trading in shares.6. Addition of Rs. 33,60,000/- based on aggregate disclosure by the Harshad Mehta Group.7. Disallowance of Rs. 1,67,014/- out of total expenditure claimed.8. Disallowance of short-term capital loss on sale of 9% IRFC bonds amounting to Rs. 48,93,466/-.9. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Invoking Section 144 and Making Best Judgment Assessment:The Tribunal did not find it necessary to adjudicate on this issue as it was deemed general in nature.2. Applicability of Presumptions Under Sections 292C and 132(4A) for Routine Assessments:Similarly, this issue was considered general and did not require specific adjudication.3. Use of Third-Party Information Without Inspection or Cross-Examination:This issue was also deemed general and did not necessitate adjudication.4. Addition of Rs. 81,15,850/- for Profits from Money Market Operations:The Tribunal admitted additional grounds related to the security trading loss and depreciation. It found that the profit from money market transactions was speculative and should be set off against the loss from share transactions of speculative nature. The Tribunal directed the AO to assess the net income of Rs. 4,39,395/-, which is the difference between the profit from money market transactions and the losses from share transactions.5. Addition of Rs. 1,92,05,630/- and Rs. 97,29,79,373/- for Speculative Profit on Trading in Shares:The Tribunal found that the loose sheets seized during the search were rough notings and not reliable evidence of actual transactions. It noted the absence of corroborative evidence and the failure of the AO to substantiate the notings on these sheets. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the AO and directed the deletion of the amounts of Rs. 1,92,05,630/- and Rs. 97,29,79,373/-.6. Addition of Rs. 33,60,000/- Based on Aggregate Disclosure by the Harshad Mehta Group:The Tribunal observed that the disclosure of Rs. 100 crores was made in the absence of complete books of accounts and was purely on an estimation basis. Since the actual income was now assessed based on books of accounts, the Tribunal held that the estimated disclosure could not be separately added. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 33,60,000/-.7. Disallowance of Rs. 1,67,014/- Out of Total Expenditure Claimed:The Tribunal found that expenses such as audit fees, professional fees, and staff welfare were allowable based on services availed during the year. It directed the AO to verify the payment dates for bonus and ex-gratia payments and allow them if paid before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal allowed the ground partly for statistical purposes.8. Disallowance of Short-Term Capital Loss on Sale of 9% IRFC Bonds Amounting to Rs. 48,93,466/-:The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 94(4) could not be invoked unless the relevant income was brought to tax in the hands of the counterparty. Since no disallowance was made in the case of Harshad S. Mehta, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the set-off of the loss of Rs. 48,93,466/-.9. Levy of Interest Under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C after considering the amount of tax deductible at source on the assessed income, following the decision in the case of related entities.Additional Grounds:The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds challenging the rejection of audited books of accounts and the claim of depreciation of Rs. 4,72,678/-. It directed the AO to examine and verify the claim of depreciation and allow it accordingly.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO to reassess certain issues based on the Tribunal's findings and the provided evidence.