2023 (6) TMI 924 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee on assessment reopening & income addition due to broker error

Ketan M. Chalishazar HUF Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-5 (3) (1), Ahmedabad

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee concerning the validity of the reopening of assessment beyond the prescribed period and ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - beyond a period of 4 years - addition of client code modification made by broker of the appellant due to punching error - HELD THAT:- AO in the assessment order has not given the specification of KETAN M. CHALISHAZAR (HUF) and KETAN M. CHALISHAZAR (INDIVIDUAL) in respect of number of trades in which client code modification has been made by the broker M/s. Affluence Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd. In fact the observations and the reproduction made by the AO is a general observations of Affluence Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd. From the perusal of the records of assessee’s transaction it is the one transaction of sale of shares of 4000 and in assessee’s case the transaction is supposes to take place in individual capacity and not in HUF capacity which was inadvertently done by the broker. These aspects were not analyzed by the AO as well as CIT(A). The observation of the CIT(A) that it is a mere assumption on part of the assessee appears to be not proper as the assessee has given the details related to the share transaction as well as the client code modification which clearly set out that in assessee’s case it is a genuine client code modification. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Issues involved:1. Validity of reopening of assessment beyond the prescribed period.2. Addition of income due to client code modification by broker.3. Treatment of total transaction value as income instead of profit or loss.4. Validity of assessment order and compliance with principles of natural justice.5. Justification of charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).Issue 1: Validity of reopening of assessment beyond the prescribed period- The appeal challenged the reopening of assessment beyond four years based on received information without recording findings on income escapement.- The Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment based on information regarding client code modification, issuing notice under Section 148 after obtaining prior approval.- The appellant contended that the reasons for reopening were not justifiable as they lacked a direct nexus with the broker.Issue 2: Addition of income due to client code modification by broker- The Assessing Officer added Rs. 16,47,800 to the total income, attributing it to client code modification by the broker to avoid tax payment.- The appellant argued that the modification was a genuine mistake by the broker, which was rectified promptly.- The appellant emphasized that the entire sale value should not be treated as income, citing relevant tribunal decisions.Issue 3: Treatment of total transaction value as income instead of profit or loss- The Assessing Officer considered the total transaction value as income rather than assessing the profit or loss arising from the transaction.- The appellant highlighted that the client code modification did not warrant treating the entire sale value as income, as it was a genuine error by the broker.Issue 4: Validity of assessment order and compliance with principles of natural justice- The appellant contended that the assessment order was invalid and contrary to natural justice principles.- The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not analyze the specific details of the transaction, leading to an incorrect assumption by the CIT(A).- The appeal was allowed, indicating a lack of proper analysis by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).Issue 5: Justification of charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C- No specific details provided in the judgment.Issue 6: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)- No specific details provided in the judgment.Conclusion:- The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding in favor of the assessee regarding the client code modification issue, highlighting the lack of proper analysis by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A in assessing the transaction details.