2025 (3) TMI 811 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT reduces deemed commission income from penny stock transactions from 3% to 0.15% of transaction value

Shri Jatin Shantilal Shah Versus Income tax Officer-20 (2) (1), Mumbai

Shri Jatin Shantilal Shah Versus Income tax Officer-20 (2) (1), Mumbai - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the commission income deemed to have been earned by the assessee from transactions involving penny stocks should be calculated at a rate of 3% as determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) or at a lower rate of 0.15% as argued by the assessee.2. Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to represent its case during the appellate proceedings under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Whether the losses declared by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 should have been considered by the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].4. For the assessment year 2013-14, whether certain transactions should be excluded from the commission calculation as they do not pertain to penny stocks.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Commission Rate on Penny Stock Transactions- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue revolves around the appropriate commission rate applicable to transactions involving penny stocks. The assessee relied on precedents set by the ITAT, Mumbai, which had previously adjudicated similar cases involving commission rates on accommodation entries.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that similar cases had been adjudicated by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, where the commission rate was restricted to 0.15%. The Tribunal found no contrary judgment presented by the Departmental Representative (DR) to challenge this precedent.- Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee accepted its role as an exit provider, facilitating accommodation entries for penny stock transactions. The AO initially applied a 3% commission rate, which was contested by the assessee based on prior ITAT rulings.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent of a 0.15% commission rate to the facts of the case, finding that the higher rate applied by the AO was not justified.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the assessee and the DR, ultimately siding with the assessee's reliance on established judicial precedent.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the commission rate should be restricted to 0.15% of the total transaction value, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal on this issue.2. Fair Opportunity to Represent- Relevant Legal Framework: The principle of natural justice requires that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not provide detailed reasoning on this issue, as the main focus was on the commission rate. However, it implicitly acknowledged the procedural fairness by addressing the substantive issue of the commission rate.- Conclusions: The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal suggests that any procedural shortcomings were outweighed by the substantive merits of the case.3. Consideration of Declared Losses- Relevant Legal Framework: Taxpayers are entitled to have their declared losses considered in the assessment process.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in detail, focusing instead on the commission rate.- Conclusions: The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal implies that the declared losses should be considered in the reassessment process.4. Exclusion of Non-Penny Stock Transactions for A.Y. 2013-14- Relevant Legal Framework: Only transactions related to penny stocks should be subject to the commission rate as an exit provider.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim that certain transactions did not pertain to penny stocks and remitted the matter to the AO for verification.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the nature of these transactions and exclude non-penny stock transactions from the commission calculation.- Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, subject to verification by the AO.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that commission rates on accommodation entries should align with established judicial precedent unless compelling reasons justify deviation.- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the commission rate should be 0.15% for the relevant transactions, allowed the appeal for both assessment years, and remitted the issue of non-penny stock transactions to the AO for verification.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment aligns with established precedents, ensuring consistency in the application of commission rates for penny stock transactions while addressing procedural fairness and the need for accurate transaction classification.