TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1580
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer for a sum of Rs. 8, 88, 000/- towards salary which is bad in law and on facts. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of consultancy charges amounting to Rs. 12, 36, 500/- which is bad in law and on facts. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in not granting rebate claimed u/s 88E of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 12, 75, 452/- which is bad in law and on facts. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and/or submit further or more ground(s) of appeal either before or at any time during the hearing of the appeal. 3. The first ground raised by the assessee relates to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of transactions done by assessee in Future and Option(F&O) segment, amounting to Rs. 45, 32, 817/- 4. The brief facts apropos this issue are that the assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/-, was added by the AO to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is aggrieved, and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Learned counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that during the assessment proceedings, assessee has submitted all the contract notes, vouchers and other details to substantiate the transactions and all the transactions were settled through account payee cheques. The assessee also submitted before us the detail of the transactions with K. M. Damani Securities Pvt. Ltd. (PB 6 to 17). The assessee also submitted before us details of the transactions entered into by him with M/s Sunchan Securities Ltd and stated that these transactions were done through stock exchange. (PB 74 to 91). With help of these documents, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that assessee has every kind of evidence in his possession and he does not have any control over Client Code Modification (CCM) and the broker (M/s Sunchan Securities Ltd) has not done CCM at the instance of the assessee. The fact that M/sSunc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o transactions w. e. f. September, 2005 whereas these transactions entered by the assessee are entered much prior to the date of suspension of the share broker i. e. on 24. 12. 2004. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this transaction.... " In addition to this, we also rely on the judgments of jurisdictional, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Emerald Commercial Ltd. [2002] 120 Taxman 282 (Calcutta), wherein it was held that where the details of purchase and sale of shares were furnished. The payment and receipt were by account payee cheque. The identity of seller and purchaser was not in dispute. The disallowance should not be made by assessing officer merely because the assessee failed to produce the brokers for verification of the transaction. 10. We note that the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to support his findings that transaction between broker, M/s. Sunchen Securities Ltd and assessee are bogus and what has been entered into betweenM/s. Sunchen Securities Ltd( the broker) and the assessee, is an unaccounted money. For that we also rely on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not filed any cogent reasons for making payment to persons staying in Surat. Since the assessee's business has been found to be trading in shares with K. Damani Securities Pvt. Ltd. , ICICI Brokerage Services Ltd. and Sunchen Securities Pvt. Ltd. , therefore payments made to the above said persons in Surat was found to be irrelevant and without any reasonable cause of service rendered, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 8, 88, 000/-. 13. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us a comparative chart of salaries paid to various persons and stated that the salary has been paid for the purpose of business and the salary expenses have been incurred for the purpose of business. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para, and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 15. We have given a caref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansactions. These persons were located at Jharkhand, Mumbai and elsewhere and were helping the assessee in share transaction with their knowledge and expertise. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the special knowledge and expertise of these persons were applied in his business. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that the nexus of the services rendered vis-a-vis payment of consultancy fee paid, could not be established by the assessee and, therefore, he added Rs. 12, 36, 500/-, to the income of the assessee. 18. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 19. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that during the Assessment Year under consideration, the assessee has paid the consultancy fee amounting to Rs. 12, 36, 500/-, to various persons for the purpose of his business. The persons to whom the consultancy fee paid, were having knowledge and expertise of the share market and they were helping the assessee in the share transact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer has not assigned any reason that why he has not allowed the rebate claimed by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 61, 22, 142/-. The assessee noted that the Assessing Officer has not allowed rebated u/s 88E of the Act to the tune of Rs. 12, 75, 462/- (Rs. 61, 22, 142/- (minus) Rs. 48, 46, 680/-). 24. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but without success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 25. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has debited in his profit and loss account, the total amount of Security Transactions Tax to the tune of Rs. 61, 22, 142/-. The sum has been disallowed in the computation of income. The assessee produced the necessary STT Certificate in Form No. 10BB before the Assessing Officer for the entire amount. But the Assessing Officer has allowed rebate u/s 88E only for a sum of Rs. 48, 46, 680/-, without giving any reason in his order. The ld. Counsel stated that while making disallowance or addition or nongranting of reb....