TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, is justified in deleting the addition on account of u/s 14A of Rs. 2,57,264/- totaling for Rs. 65,04,443/- despite the amendment made to the Rule 8D w.e.f. 02.06.2016 made by the AO." 2. Ground no. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of Client Code punching error was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has submitted that as per the investigation carried by Directorate I & CI Mumbai and by Directorate of Investigation Ahmedabad it was found that fictitious profits and losses were created by some brokers by misusing the client code modification facility in F&O segment on National Stock Exchange (NSE). The ld. DR has referred to the assessment order and submitted that the Investigation has revealed the modus apprendi as to how the client code modification is done by the brokers at Stock Exchange. He has further contended that some of the brokers are misusing the facility provided by the Stock Exchange for correcting the genuine mistake in client code modification after trade hours. Therefore, once the case of the assessee was found to be misused of the facility provided by the exchange for client code modification then the AO has rightly made th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Code Modification facility allows the broker to correct the mistakes which are committed during the course of doing the trade on behalf of the various clients. There may be some instances of misusing this facility by the brokers but it cannot be done by the broker on regular basis as the broker is bound to carry out trading transactions as per the instructions of the client and therefore, until and unless all three parties are hand in gloves or in connivance, such misuse of Client Code Modification facility cannot be done by a broker. Therefore, all three parties are required to have common intention and design which in normal course is not possible when they are not related parties as the time limit to modify the client code is very limited after execution of trade/transaction at the stock exchange. The meeting of three minds is essential for misusing this facility and doing this mischievous transfer of profits from one hand to another hand. Until and unless two clients and broker are on the same page and involved in doing this mischievous act by misusing the facility of Client Code Modification such transactions are not possible when the parties are not related to each other par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard. Further, the Ld. A/R was made aware of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mill Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to cross examine is not absolute and that the requirement of law for valid assessment would be met if all the evidence collected which is to be used against the assessee while framing the assessment order is placed before Tie assessee and given opportunity to rebut the evidence. Here, it is also worth to state that the share brokers u/s 131(1A) in Mumbai is not sole basis for reopening the case, there is material and circumstantial evidences which prove that assessee was indulged in misuse of CCM facility. All the material including trade data has been provided to the ld. A/R on 30/11/2016 itself." Thus, when the assessment order is based on the report of the Investigation Wing without any fresh and independent enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer and the report of the investigation wing in turn is based on the statement of the brokers then without giving the opportunity to the assessee to cross e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of crossexamination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause Notice." Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the case u/s 148 of the Act by duly recording the reasons 5. That the detail of reopening was provided to the assessee on 17-04-2015. 6. That the assessee firm had raised objections to the reopening proceedings. The objections were duly considered by the AO and a written order disposing the petition of the assessee was passed and served to the assessee. 7. That it was found by the authorities that the firm was found using client code modification facility in F&O segment on NSE during the year under consideration. By doing this, it is alleged that fictitious losses and profits were transferred to its clients. 8. That the appellant has claimed that it was a genuine mistake on the part of its staffs to have punched firm's code instead of its client's code. And that later on when such a mistake was noticed the same was deleted by deleting the trading from the firm's code and credited to the client's code. 9. That the appellant has further submitted that the mistake was done at the broker's level and the firm should not be held responsible for mistake committed by the brokers. 10. That the appellant has further submitted that client code modifications are a very legitimate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th his income liable to tax but on which he avoid payment of tax by some artifice or device. Such artifice or device may apparently show the income as accruing to another person, at the same time making it available foruse and enjoyment to the assessee's as in a case falling within Section 44-D or mask the true character of the income by disguising it as a capital receipt as in a case falling within Section 44-E or assume diverse other forms... But there must be some artifice or device enabling the assessee to avoid payment of tax on what is really and in truth his income. If the assessee parts with his income-producing asset, so that the right to receive income arising from the asset which theretofore belonged to the assessee is transferred to and vested in some other person, there is no avoidance of tax liability: no part of the income from the asset goes into the hands of the assessee in the shape of income or under any guise''. Then, Misra. J. responded: (SCC pp. 254-55, para 45)''45. Tax planning may be legitimate provided it is within the frame work of law. Colourable device cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies of letters enclosed at PB 39- 46). 2. It is submitted that in any given day, thousands of transactions are carried out by brokers. The CCM facility is provided by the National Stock Exchange to rectify the errors / mistakes made at the time of punching trades. The National Stock Exchange of India Limited has provided certain guidelines and penalties relating to the CCM Facility (PB 20-26). As per the stock exchange, CCM facility can be used to modify the client code on the trade day itself till 4:15 PM (PB 20). This is also stated in Circular No. 974 dated 10.09.2009 of the National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited for its Futures & Options Segment (PB 25-26). The stock exchange has also drawn a list of the common violations committed and the applicable penalties (PB 21-24) where it is stated that "if the transfer of trades / errors at the time of order entries are in excess of 2% of the number of orders executed, fine of 0.1% of value of trades transferred is applicable". 3. The broker on an average executes more than 5000 trades in a day. As is calculated by the AO, the exchange is operative only 260 days in a year. Thus, in a year approximately 13 lakhs trades are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one with mala fide intention, then the profit or loss accruing till the client code modification can be considered in the case of the assessee but the profit/loss arising after such modification can by no stretch of imagination be considered in the hands of the assessee. Moreover, CIT(A) having found that all transactions at the commodities exchange have been duly accounted in the books of account maintained by the concerned parties, there cannot be any justification for considering that profit/loss in the case of the assessee on the basis of mere presumption or suspicion. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO and the same be deleted.'' 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 3.4 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of trading in shares. It is noted that the assessee itself is a client of M/s. Artistic Finance (P) Ltd. which carried out business on behalf of the assessee and the clients of the assessee. It is noted that every client....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modity had changed, then perhaps there could have been some basis to presume that client code modification was intentional. Even if the view of the Revenue is accepted that client code modification was done with mala fide intention, then the profit or loss accruing till the client code modification can be considered in the case of the assessee but the profit/loss arising after such modification can by no stretch of imagination be considered in the hands of the assessee. Moreover, CIT(A) having found that all transactions at the commodities exchange have been duly accounted in the books of account maintained by the concerned parties, there cannot be any justification for considering that profit/loss in the case of the assessee on the basis of mere presumption or suspicion.'' Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahemdabad Bench (supra), the Ground No. 2 and 2.1 of the assessee is allowed." Thus, it is clear that the stock exchange has accepted the reasonable error margin up to 5% and undisputedly in the case of the assessee, the error and rectification of the same by using the Client Code Modification constitute only 0.47%, therefore, the percentage of trade which ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he code to the concerned client's account at the end of the day has not been disproved. If at all any person comes with a request seeking profits, there will normally be time lag and hence the fact that the assessee has changed the codes at the end of the day only shows that the assessee has carried out the transactions on behalf of its clients only. Such kind of transactions shall usually be sporadic transactions, where as in the instant * case, the clients have carried out the transactions continuously. Further, it is pertinent to note that none of the clients, with whom the assessing officer has carried out the examination, has disowned the transactions. Further, all the clients have duly disclosed the profits arising from the transactions as their respective income. Though the AO has alleged that the said profits have been used to set off the past brought forward losses, yet the Ld CIT(A) has made a detailed analysis of this matter and has given a clear finding that the same was not true in all the cases. The Ld CIT(A) has pointed out that majority of the clients have paid tax on the profits. It was further noticed that the some of the transactions have resulted in loss als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee without properly bringing any materials to support the view, i.e., the additions have been made on suspicion and surmises only. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) in both the years under consideration." Thus, in the said case, the modification carried out by the assessee were 3% of the total transaction, which was found by the Tribunal as within the permissible limit of error margin. The Ahmadabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Kunvarjit Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and others in bunch of appeals has analysed the issue in para 8 to 11 as under: "8. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The Assessing Officer believed the client code modification to be malafide because in his opinion the client code modification was for unusually high number of cases. Therefore, first thing to be decided is whether there was the client code modification for unusually high number of cases. The Commodity Exchange i.e. MCX vide circular No. MCX/T&S/032/2007 dated 22.01.2007, issued guidelines with regard to the client code modification, which reads as under:- "Circular no. MCX/T&S/032/2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd if it is greater than 10%, then penalty is Rs.10,000/-. From the above, the only inference that can be drawn is that as per MCX, the client code modification upto 1% is absolutely normal and therefore, the broker is permitted to modify the client code upto 1% without paying any penalty. Even client code modification upto 5% is not considered unusually high because that is also permitted with the token penalty of Rs.500/-. In the context of the circular issued by Commodity Exchange, let us examine whether the client code modification done by the broker i.e. KCBPL is unusually high. At page No.16 on paragraph No.4.3, the CIT(A) has given the number of transactions entered into by the assessee for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08 and the number of client code modification and percentage thereof. We have also reproduced the same at paragraph No.6 of our order. From the said details, it is evident that the client code modification was done in four years 36,161 times. As an absolute figure, the client code modification may look very high, but if we look it at in terms of total transactions, it is only 0.94%. The total number of trade transactions is 38.58 lacs and the client code modific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, have been offered and brought to the charge of tax in the cases of concerned assessees." These findings of fact recorded by the ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us. When the transaction has been duly accounted for and the profit/loss has accrued to the concerned parties in whose names transactions have been closed, there cannot be any basis or justification for considering those profit/loss in the case of the assessee on the basis of mere presumption or suspicion. It is not the case of the Revenue that such alleged profit has actually been received by the assessee. In view of the totality of the above facts, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and the same is sustained; and Ground Nos. 1 and 3 of the Revenue's appeal are rejected. Thus in the said case, it was found and held that the Client Code Modification up to 1% is quite normal and permissible without any penalty. The case in hand, it was only 0.47%, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the Client Code Modification done by the broker in the transactions where after the execution of the trade, the brok....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record. This ground is treated as partly allowed." Thus, it is a clear that the ld. CIT(A) has applied correct rate as applicable for the year under consideration whereas the AO has applied amended rule which was not applicable for the year under consideration. Accordingly, in view of the facts that as per the formula given in Rule 8Dthe disallowance @ 0.5% of the average investment was to be calculated on account of administrative expenditure. Hence, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. 8. In Cross Objection of the assessee has raised following grounds:- "1) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 even though such reopening on the basis of alleged client code modification is struck down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. [writ petition no. 2627 of 2016] and without disposing objections dated 09/08/2017. 2) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming Rs. 1,28,632/- u/s 14A without appreciating thefact ....