Reopening assessment quashed, section 68 addition deleted for properly recorded derivative gains treated as unexplained cash credit

ITAT Mumbai quashed the reopening of assessment and deleted the addition under section 68 for unexplained cash credit. The tribunal found the reopening was based on factually incorrect grounds, as the assessee had properly recorded derivative gains in financial statements. The AO incorrectly treated declared profits as undisclosed money routed back through share transactions. The tribunal held that even if income was non-genuine, it cannot be added under section 68 when already shown as revenue. The AO should have reduced the amount from income side rather than adding it, making the exercise tax neutral due to available set-off provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of permission obtained under section 151 of the Act.
3. Addition of Rs. 1,27,52,200 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Addition of Rs. 1,27,522 under section 69A of the Act.
5. Different nomenclature for additions when tax rates are the same.
6. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7. Penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The assessee contended that the notice issued under section 148 dated 31.03.2021 was invalid and should be quashed. The Assessing Officer issued the notice based on the belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Tribunal found that the basis for reopening the assessment was factually incorrect, as the derivative gains from M/s. Latin Manharlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. were duly recorded in the financial statements for the year under consideration. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were deemed invalid.

2. Legality of Permission Obtained Under Section 151 of the Act:

The assessee argued that the permission obtained under section 151 was not in accordance with the law, as it was given mechanically by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the basis for reopening the assessment was incorrect, the permission obtained was also flawed.

3. Addition of Rs. 1,27,52,200 Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had added Rs. 1,27,52,200 to the income of the assessee under section 68, alleging that the assessee had routed back its undisclosed money as profit from fictitious share transactions. However, the Tribunal found that the derivative gains of Rs. 1,27,27,019 were already included in the profit and loss account. Even if the income was not genuine or illegal, it could not be added under section 68 as unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have reduced this amount from the income side and then proceeded further.

4. Addition of Rs. 1,27,522 Under Section 69A of the Act:

The assessee contended that the addition of Rs. 1,27,522 under section 69A, alleging payment of 1% commission on artificial gains, was incorrect. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the primary addition under section 68 was incorrect, the related addition under section 69A was also flawed.

5. Different Nomenclature for Additions When Tax Rates are the Same:

The assessee argued that additions could not be made under different nomenclatures when tax rates were the same. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that the entire basis for the additions was incorrect.

6. Charging of Interest Under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The assessee contended that the interest charged under section 234B was erroneous. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the primary additions were incorrect, the interest charged was also flawed.

7. Penalty Under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The assessee argued against the penalties invoked under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b). The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue separately but implied that since the primary additions were incorrect, the penalties were also unwarranted.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the entire basis for reopening the assessment was factually incorrect. The derivative gains from M/s. Latin Manharlal Securities Pvt. Ltd. were duly recorded in the financial statements. The Assessing Officer's observations were found to be incorrect, and the impugned assessment order was quashed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the impugned addition.

---