TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal: I. "ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IS BAD IN LAW: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr. CIT 27 erred in treating the order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24 March 2022 (re-assessment order) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby setting aside the order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr.CIT 27 failed to appreciate the fact that the original assessment order as well as re-assessment order have duly considered the transaction of NSEL commodity loss of Rs 8,68,70,608 whereby the orders passed are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e investigation wing of the Income Tax Department the assessee has obtained fictitious profits in commodity trading in NSEL by Client Code Modification (CCM) were the assessee is said to have entered into bogus trades creating a loss of Rs. 8.68 crores in its P & L Account which has been set off by the assessee against its regular business income. The ld. AO passed the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022 determining total income at Rs. Nil by duly accepting the returned loss. 4. The ld. PCIT vide notice u/s. 263 dated 20.02.2024 invoked the revisionary powers and held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue thereby setting aside the assessment order with the dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the revenue. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions : - a. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (HC) b. Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association Vs. CIT (Exemption) [2024] 158 taxmann.com 264 (Mumbai -Trib.) c. Impact Foundation (India) Vs. CIT (Exemptions) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 189 (Mumbai-Trib.). 7. The ld. DR on the other hand controverted the said fact and stated that the ld. AO has not inquired into the modus operandi of the Client Code Modification in which assessee was one of the beneficiary. Further, the ld. DR contended that the ld. AO in the assessment order has merely reproduced the submission of the assessee but had failed to give a detailed finding as to how the assessee was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brokers based on the contract notes issued by them which were outstanding and receivable from NSEL. The assessee is said to have earned income from the said transaction until July, 2013, until the government had stopped the trading activities at NSEL and a circular dated 31.07.2013 was issued by NSEL suspending trading in one day forward contracts and deferring settlement to 15 days by stating that there has been loss of trading interest in the market due to underlying uncertainties leading to trade inequilibrium. The circular had also merged the delivery and settlement of outstanding contracts, which the assessee contends that it was also a victim of NSEL's scam, thereby resulting in a loss of Rs. 8,68,70,608/- which was carried out throu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that there were total of 219 brokers who have made 51,565 Client Code Modification (CCM) and the total volume of sales and purchase transaction was Rs. 6,311 crores as per the investigation report. Out of the same, the maximum Client Code Modification (CCM) were done by ARCL amounting to Rs. 3,073.48 crores and on summon issued u/s. 131 of the Act, its president Shri. Chetan Pitamber Bharkharda revealed that there was no physical delivery of goods in any of the transactions carried out on NSEL platform and the same has been reproduced in the ld. PCIT's order. The ld. PCIT had also discussed the details of the investigation done by the investigation team and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). That being so, the ld. AO has not ver....