TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case, original return of income was filed on 18th September, 2010 declaring NIL income. Thereafter, information was received from Director of Income Tax (I & CI) on 27"' Feb. 2015, whereby it was informed that there were fictitious profits and losses created by some brokers by misusing the client code modification facility in F&O segment on NSE during March 2010. The assessee's name was figuring in such client code modification, therefore, based on such information assessment was reopened in the case of assessee and notice under section 148 was issued on 24.03.2015. The assessee submitted before A.O. that return originally filed may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. passed the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the report of the DIT (I & CI), Mumbai and pasted the same in the assessment order without bringing any material on record. It is also stated by the appellant that Assessing Officer has not confronted any material or statement received from DIT (I & CI), Mumbai wherein it is alleged that appellant has obtained accommodation entry of the loss. There is no material in the support of the allegations." The report dated 27.02.2015 is filed by the appellant in the paper book. However, in the said report it is simply mentioned the loss of Rs. 33,57,951/-. There is no working given as to how the appellant has taken these loss entries. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO has not called for any information about alleged loss of Rs. 33,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer has not pin pointed in the assessment order as to in which transaction appellant obtained deliberate loss by changing client code, therefore, it is held that addition of Rs. 33,57,951/- made by the AO is based on vague information and same cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is deleted." 3. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that in case A.O. failed to discharge his functions properly, the obligation to conduct proper enquiry shifts to the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete the addition made by the A.O. on the ground of lack of enquiry. In support of his contention, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has taken these loss entries. The Ld. CIT(A) on going through the statements of Kunal Khaleja and Subhash Chandra Khaleja which have been relied upon by the A.O. found that there is no co-relation between a sum of Rs. 33,57,951 and the statements of the above broker with the assessee. The finding of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) have not been rebutted through any evidence or material on record. No information is available on record as to how the assessee company has taken loss from these client code modification. There is no working given in the assessment order as to how the impugned addition has been calculated by the A.O. and its basis. In the absence of any incriminating material available on record against the assessee, it is diffi....