VPT SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1146/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 July 2026AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had partially furnished voluminous documents for the trading loss and directed the AO to allow it. For the customer advances, the Tribunal found they were adjusted against subsequent sales and directed to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a loss from futures and options trading, which was disallowed by the AO for lack of records. The assessee also had advances from customers which the AO treated as bogus. The CIT(A) confirmed both disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether the loss from futures and options trading is allowable when records were voluminous, and whether customer advances can be treated as bogus if adjusted against future sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

For Appellant: Ms. Ankeeta Lohia, CA
For Respondent: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1146/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2014-15) VPT Securities Private Limited, ITO, 3rd Floor, Calcutta Stock Exchange Vs. Ward – 5(4), Building, 7 Lyons Range BBD Bag, Kolkata Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal [PAN: AABCV7090B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Ankeeta Lohia, CA Respondent by: Shri Praveen Das Chowdhury, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2026

O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Gurugram(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. JCIT(A)”], dated 28.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

2.

The issue raised in Ground No.3 is against the disallowance of loss claimed by assessee of Rs.2,99,396/- arising from trading in futures and options, which was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The facts of the case in brief are that assessee engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. The assessee incurred loss of

ITA No.1146/Kol/2025/AY 2014-15 VPT Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Rs.2,99,396/- which was claimed in the return of income. However, the Assessing Officer (In short, ‘the AO’) rejected the same on the ground that assessee did not produce records before the AO and found that claim of the assessee appears non-genuine and non-bonafide. We also find merit of the contention of the assessee that voluminous documents were humongous and partly furnished before the AO. Considering these facts we are inclined to set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO allow loss of Rs.2,99,396/ as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.3 is allowed.

4.

Ground No.4 upholding the addition of Rs.16,13,634/- as made by AO in respect of advances received from customers by treating the same as bogus.

5.

Facts of the case in brief are that the AO noted during the assessment, that the assessee has the total outstanding advance from the customers of Rs.16,13,634/- is as under:

6.

According to the AO, the said advances were bogus as the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the customers and genuineness of the transactions lies on the assessee which was not proved. Therefore, the AO added to the income on the ground that the assessee could not prove the

ITA No.1146/Kol/2025/AY 2014-15 VPT Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO identity, creditworthiness of the customer and genuineness of the transactions which was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record including the copies of customer’s account, bank statements, we find that these advances were adjusted against the said sales effected in the subsequent year on behalf of the customers. Therefore, the action of the AO as confirmed ld. CIT(A) in treating these advances as bogus cannot be sustained. In view of the facts, we are inclined to set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.16,13,634/-.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey) (Rajesh Kumar) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated: 16/07/2026 SAMANTA आदेश �ȧ ĤǓ�ͧ �ͪ �\ Ē ȯͪ��/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ/ The Appellant Ĥ×��ȸ/ The Respondent. 2. 3. Ȳ�Ȳͬ��] ���] �ǕÈ�/ Concerned CIT 4. ] ���] �ǕÈ�(अपील) / The CIT(A) ��ȡ�Ȣ�ĤǓ�Ǔ�ͬ �, ] ���\ �Ȣ�ȣ�\ͬ ����,/ DR, ITAT, Surat 5. 6. �ȡ�[�ȡ_�/ Guard file.

BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY //

Asstt.Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →