Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order which was similarly worded in the preceding assessment year 2009-10 in the assessee’s case. In that case though the Tribunal had accepted the Department’s theory of misuse of clients code modification facility, it had accepted the assessee’s explanation and discarded the Department’s theory that profits of the assessee were passed on to the clients. The Tribunal noticed that the Department had not contended that the client code modification facility was often misused by the assessee to pass on losses to the investors, who may have sizable profit arising out of commodity trading against which such losses could be set off. What could be taxed in the hands of the assessee was the income escaping assessment. Even if the Department’s theory of the assessee having enabled the clients to claim contrived losses, it had to bring on record some evidence of the income earned by the assessee in the process, be it in the nature of commission or otherwise. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount of doubtful transactions by way of the assessee’s additional income, which was wholly impermissible. The Tribunal deleted the addition on the merits and quashed the reopening of the assessment holding that the addition made by the authorities on account of client codes modification was not justified. The orders of the authorities were set aside and the entire addition was deleted.( AY.2010-11) ( Followed PCIT v . Pat Commodity Services Pvt Ltd ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org)