Tribunal held that the transactions were supported by bills/contract notes and the assessee couldn’t have done any client code modifications. The data provided by the A.O. neither pertained to assessee nor any modification was carried out on behest of the assessee. There is nothing on record to establish that the loss transactions were not genuine. Further, assesse is not a registered broker and thus, could not modify the client code. Nothing has been brought on record by the AO to prove that the modifications have been done on the behest of the assessee and thus, the assessee couldn’t be held responsible for the modification to the client code. Tribunal also held that no nexus can be established with the losses suffered by the assessee. The connivance/ collusion of the assessee with the share broker could not be established. Accordingly the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) is affirmed. (ITA No 5688/Mum/2017 dt 3-07 2019) (AY. 2010-11)
DCIT v. Vipul D. Shah (Mum.)(Trib.) (UR)
S. 28(1) : Business income–Suppression of income-Future and options-Shares and derivatives – Client code modifications (CCM)- Burden is on the assessee to establish that the client code modifications have been done on the behest of the assessee– Addition cannot be made as suppression of income of the assessee. [S.143(3)]
[…] . This judgment is of share broker. Judgments for the clients of such brokers, refer DCIT v. Vipul D. Shah (Mum-Trib.), DCIT v. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Mum-Trib.) (FAVOURABLE). Also refer Time Media & […]