Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed appeals against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) concerning F&O transactions of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- for AY 2013-14. The AO had reopened the assessment on the basis of information about doubtful F&O transactions, which he considered as suppressed income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding it as a double addition as the profit was already offered by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, as the assessee had already offered the profit from the F&O transactions in its audited P&L account. The AO's addition was therefore a double addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no error or perversity in the order.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO for F&O transactions, which were already offered by the assessee, amounts to a double addition.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(1), 144B, 143(3), 271(1)(c), 142(1), 133(6), 148A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per Bench:
Feeling aggrieved by three separate orders of first appeal, all dated 14.08.2024 and all passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders dated 04.05.2023, 16.05.2023 and 26.05.2023 passed by Assessment Unit
Page 1 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-years [“AYs”] 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015- 16, the revenue has filed captioned three (3) appeals and the assessee has filed captioned three (3) cross-objections.
At the start of hearing, learned Representatives of both sides agree that the underlying facts and controversies involved in these cases are identical except change of figures [The AO has made addition of Rs. 2,15,00,000/-, Rs. 50,12,400/- and Rs. 3,23,81,106/- in AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively which are disputed in these appeals].
Therefore, these cases may be decided on the basis of Grounds of Appeal, Assessment-order and impugned Order of first-appeal of AY 2013-14 and the same adjudication shall apply to all three assessment-years. We have proceeded accordingly.
3.1 The brief facts of AY 2013-14 are such that the assessee filed return declaring a total income of Rs. 12,30,330/- which was assessed u/s 143(1).
Subsequently, the AO received information on Insight Portal of Income-tax Department revealing that the assessee entered into F&O transactions of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- of doubtful nature. Based thereon, the AO re-opened assessee’s case u/s 147 vide notice dated 23.07.2022 u/s 148 after following the procedure of section 148A(d). During proceedings, the AO sought explanation from assessee qua the transactions of F&O and in reply the assessee filed letters 31.01.2023 & 17.02.2023 which are re-produced
Page 2 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 by AO on Pages 5 & 6 of assessment-order. The assessee enclosed documentary evidences of transactions in the form of (i) Audited P&L A/c of F&O Transactions, (ii) Contracts Notes of F&O Transactions, and (iii)
Broker’s Ledger, to show that the transactions were genuine and also that the those transactions had already been recorded in audited books of assessee and credited to audited P&L A/c. The AO, however, rejected assessee’s submission and passed following order making an addition of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- in AY 2013-14:
“4.6 Conclusion drawn: During the year under consideration As per the information received in the category of High Risk Transactions CRIU/VRU information on Insight Portal of the department, On perusal of the records, it has been observed that the assessee case was selected for verification under the pilot project on reversal trades in BSE stock options, wherein a detailed investigation was carried out by SEBI and the assessee was found to have indulged in acquiring accommodation entries through the mechanism of reversal trades. Further, as per verification of the transaction it was concluded that the trades carried out by the assessee exhibit all the trails of reversal trades which have been declared by the SEBI and the Hon'ble Apex Court as non-genuine trades. The assessee had made profit on F&O transaction of Rs. 2,15,00,000/-, which is of doubtful nature. Having carefully considered the above reports and after duly applying mind thereon, I am satisfied that the assessee suppressed its income by claiming the non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- and added to the total income of the assessee and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealment of income.” 3.2 The assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) reversed AO’s order and deleted the entire addition. Now, the revenue has come in next appeal. The assessee has also filed cross-objection raising certain issues of legality. We first take up Revenue’s Appeal and thereafter Assessee’s Cross-objection.
Page 3 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Revenue’s appeal:
The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal in of AY 2013-14:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the Addition of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- made by AO without appreciating the facts and evidences mentioned in the assessment order by the AO.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in deleting the additions on the basis of assessment order passed in the case for AY 2016-17 wherein return income was accepted by the AO, without verifying and considering the facts of relevant assessment years.”
We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and considered their submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities. At first, we extract the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) reversing the action of AO and giving relief to assessee:
“The assessment of the appellant was reopened for AY 2016-17 in which same allegation regarding reversal trade was a reason for reopening. After verification of all the facts and legal position the AO has accepted that all the transactions alleged as doubtful nature has already offered as profit, so no further addition was made and return income was accepted. During the current assessment year, the appellant has accounted the transactions in same manner as in AY 2016-17 and already offered the profit, which have been treated by AO as doubtful so any further addition will result into double addition. The appellant has also made the transactions with Goodluck Securities during the current assessment year and similar transactions with same party were done by the appellant during AY 2016-17. Considering these facts and following the principle of consistency, it is held that the income which has already been offered for tax cannot be added again being doubted as of doubtful nature without any basis. Accordingly, the addition made of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- cannot be sustained and deleted. This ground is allowed.”
Page 4 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16
Ld. AR has filed a copy of assessment-order passed by AO in assessee’s case for another AY 2016-17 at Pages 66-67 of Paper-Book; the same is scanned and re-produced for an immediate reference:
Page 5 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 This assessment-order was passed on identical issues and in identical proceedings as involved in present appeals pending before us and the AO
Page 6 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 has, after careful consideration, accepted that the assessee has already offered the transactions. Finally, the AO accepted returned income and closed the re-opened assessment of AY 2016-17. Therefore, the CIT(A) has correctly given relief in current year following the adjudication made by AO in AY 2016-17 in same set of facts.
Ld. AR next carried us to Page No. 140 of Paper-Book where the audited P&L A/c of assessee is filed; the same is scanned and re-produced here for an immediate reference:
Page 7 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 In this P&L A/c, there is a credit of Rs. 2,15,89,538.53 with the caption “ICEX Trading A/c”. Thus, Ld. AR demonstrated that the assessee has already credited the F&O transactions of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- in audited P&L
Page 8 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 A/c [Ld. AR clarified that the sum of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- referred and added by AO is a round/lump sum figure; the exact figure of transactions done by assessee was Rs. 2,15,89,538.53] and paid tax thereon in the return of income. Therefore, the CIT(A) has correctly adjudicated that the addition of Rs. 2,15,00,000/- made by AO has resulted in double addition.
Thus, we agree with Ld. AR’s submission that there is no error, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order of CIT(A). The Ld. DR for revenue is not able to point out any infirmity although he dutifully relied upon order of AO. Faced with this situation, we do not have any valid reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A), the same is hereby upheld. The revenue fails in the appeal of AY 2013-14.
As agreed by parties, the same adjudication will apply to all three years. Hence, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed.
Assessee’s Cross-Objection:
The assessee has raised following grounds:
“1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground no 4 raised before him in a summary manner. That ground no 4 was raised challenging the reopening as invalid as it was time barred. The reopening being time barred, the order may very kindly be quashed.
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground no 5 raised before him in a summary manner. That ground no 5 was raised that income should be represented by asset which was not there. The order so passed may very kindly be quashed.
That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground no 6 raised before him in a summary manner. That ground no 6 was raised that learned CIT has issued
Page 9 of 10 740 & 741/Ind/2024 & CO No.11,12 & 13/Ind/2025 - A.Ys:2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 notice u/s 148A whereas it should have been issued by learned Pr. CIT. That notice issued u/s 148A by Learned CIT not Learned Pr. CIT. The order so passed may very kindly be quashed.
4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground no 7 raised before him in a summary manner. That there cannot be any reopening only on the basis of flagged information. No independent enquiry has been done in this case. The case so reopened only on the basis of flagged information is illegal and wrong. The order so passed may very kindly be quashed.”
Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward request that if the revenue’s appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections.
Since we have dismissed revenue’s appeals in earlier part of this order, considering the request of Ld. AR these cross-objections of assessee are dismissed as non-pressed.
Resultantly, all these matters are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 06/08/2025