Revenue appeal dismissed; derivative loss, section 50C addition and Rule 46A objections fail for lack of corroboration.

ITAT Kolkata - AT upheld the order of CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal in entirety. It held that the AO failed to bring any corroborative material to support the allegation of bogus derivative loss, while the assessee, a broker, had produced all valid contract notes for exchange-traded transactions. The addition under section 50C was rightly deleted as the difference between sale consideration and stamp value was within the 5% safe harbor limit. Alleged violation of Rule 46A was rejected since documents before CIT(A) were already with AO. The addition based on mismatch between Profit and Loss account and Form 26AS was also deleted, as the apparent difference was only due to inclusion of service tax in Form 26AS.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the loss claimed on current year derivative trading in currency derivatives executed through a registered stock exchange could be treated as bogus solely on the basis of Investigation Wing information and a retracted statement recorded under section 132, in absence of corroborative evidence and without affording cross-examination.

1.2 Whether the difference between declared sale consideration of immovable property and the value adopted for stamp duty purposes, being within 5%, attracted section 50C for the relevant assessment year, and whether the third proviso to section 50C introducing a 5% safe harbour tolerance is retrospective in nature, including its impact on depreciation and written down value of building.

1.3 Whether the first appellate authority violated Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by accepting additional documents without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity, when such documents were filed pursuant to directions of the appellate authority and/or were already before the Assessing Officer.

1.4 Whether the difference between receipts as per Form 26AS and income credited in the Profit and Loss account justified an addition as undisclosed income, when Form 26AS figures included service tax whereas the accounts recorded only the revenue component separately from service tax, and a minor item of interest income was admittedly omitted.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Addition on account of alleged bogus loss on current year derivatives

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The assessment was made treating the loss from derivative trading in currency derivatives on a recognised stock exchange as bogus, based on Investigation Wing information and a statement recorded under section 132 of the Act from a director of an intermediary company, later retracted. Reference was made to notices issued under section 133(6).

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Tribunal noted the categorical findings that the assessee was a registered broker with a specific client code for trading in currency derivatives on MCX Stock Exchange, had issued valid contract notes, and all trades were executed through the online stock exchange platform and routed through normal banking channels.

2.3 The appellate authority had found that the Assessing Officer did not detect any discrepancy in the derivative trades themselves and relied solely on Investigation Wing information alleging that transactions through a particular company were non-genuine, and on the statement of its director recorded under section 132, which had been retracted.

2.4 It was recorded that: (i) apart from such information and the retracted statement, no independent or further investigation was carried out by the Assessing Officer; (ii) the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) to the stock exchange but did not discuss or utilise the reply in the assessment order; (iii) the statement of the said director was neither supplied to the assessee nor was cross-examination allowed.

2.5 The appellate authority had further relied on a co-ordinate Bench decision holding that similar current year derivative transactions routed through the same company were genuine, and concluded that there was no corroborative material to establish that the assessee's derivative transactions were sham.

2.6 The Tribunal examined these findings and agreed that the Assessing Officer had merely acted on the Investigation Wing report and a retracted statement, without bringing any tangible material on record to disprove the genuineness of the trades or to contradict the contract notes and exchange-based trades produced by the assessee.

Conclusions

2.7 The loss on current year derivative trading could not be treated as bogus in the absence of corroborative evidence and in light of valid exchange-based transactions supported by contract notes and bank records.

2.8 The deletion of the addition on account of alleged bogus loss in derivative trading was upheld.

Issue 2: Applicability of section 50C and 5% safe harbour, and consequential depreciation

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.9 The Assessing Officer invoked section 50C to substitute the declared sale consideration of a co-owned immovable property with the value as per stamp valuation / DVO, leading to an addition under the head "Capital gains" and consequential adjustment to written down value and depreciation on building.

2.10 The third proviso to section 50C, inserted by the Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 01.04.2019, provides that where the variation between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration does not exceed a specified percentage (5% during the relevant period), the actual consideration shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration. The Assessing Officer contended that this amendment was prospective, as per the Explanatory Notes to the Finance Act, 2018.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.11 The appellate authority found that the DVO's estimated value of the property as on 31.01.2012 was marginally higher than the declared consideration, and that the difference was less than 5% of the declared sale consideration.

2.12 It was noted that several judicial decisions, including those of the same Tribunal, had held the insertion of the third proviso to section 50C to be declaratory and curative in nature, characterising it as procedural and not substantive, and hence retrospective from the date of introduction of section 50C, i.e., 01.04.2003, even though the statute did not expressly provide for retrospective application.

2.13 On this reasoning, the appellate authority held that, since the difference between the DVO value and the declared consideration did not exceed 5%, the assessee was entitled to the safe harbour benefit and section 50C could not be invoked to substitute the declared consideration.

2.14 It was further observed that once the safe harbour rule was applied and no substitution under section 50C was permissible, the assessee's original computation of capital gains remained undisturbed, and consequently the written down value of the building and the depreciation claimed thereon, computed on the basis of such WDV, could not be adjusted.

2.15 The Tribunal agreed with the appellate authority's approach and its conclusion that, in the facts of the case, the difference fell within the permissible tolerance as per the third proviso and therefore no addition under section 50C or on account of depreciation was sustainable.

Conclusions

2.16 The third proviso to section 50C, providing a 5% safe harbour, was held applicable to the assessment year in question as a declaratory and curative provision.

2.17 Since the variation between DVO valuation and declared consideration was within 5%, the declared consideration had to be accepted; no addition under section 50C and no consequential adjustment to written down value or depreciation was warranted.

2.18 The deletion of the addition of capital gains and disallowance of depreciation was upheld.

Issue 3: Alleged violation of Rule 46A by the first appellate authority

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.19 The Revenue alleged that the appellate authority contravened Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 by not remanding fresh documents to the Assessing Officer or calling for his comments before relying upon them.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.20 The Tribunal recorded the factual finding that the assessee had filed documents before the appellate authority only pursuant to directions issued by that authority.

2.21 It was also found that no new documents, which had not been before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, were introduced; the documents were either already on record or were obtained and filed as called for by the appellate authority.

2.22 On these facts, the Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of Rule 46A, as the appellate authority had not entertained independent fresh evidence behind the back of the Assessing Officer, but had exercised its appellate powers in calling for and examining materials.

Conclusions

2.23 No breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 was made out in the conduct of the appellate proceedings.

2.24 The ground alleging procedural violation by the appellate authority was rejected.

Issue 4: Addition for difference between income as per Profit and Loss account and Form 26AS

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.25 The Assessing Officer added the difference between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and income recorded in the Profit and Loss account, treating it as unexplained income, on the ground that the assessee failed to give a satisfactory explanation.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.26 The appellate authority examined the reconciliation furnished by the assessee and found that the gross amounts reported in Form 26AS included service tax, whereas in the books the assessee had recognised only the revenue component in the Profit and Loss account and accounted for service tax separately.

2.27 On this basis, it was held that there was no suppression of income; the apparent difference arose merely because Form 26AS showed composite figures inclusive of service tax, while the accounts reflected net taxable receipts with service tax segregated.

2.28 However, the assessee admitted that interest income from a utility company in the sum of Rs. 39,936 had not been included in total income. The appellate authority directed that only this amount be added to the total income.

2.29 The Tribunal endorsed the finding of fact that, except for the admitted omitted interest income, there was no real difference between the income as per the Profit and Loss account and Form 26AS, as the discrepancy was attributable to inclusion of service tax in Form 26AS figures.

Conclusions

2.30 The addition on account of difference between Form 26AS and the Profit and Loss account was not justified to the extent it arose from inclusion of service tax in Form 26AS figures.

2.31 Only the amount of interest income admittedly omitted by the assessee was liable to be added; the balance addition was rightly deleted, and this deletion was upheld.

---