2025 (6) TMI 1925 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of business loss - as per revenue loss on sale of listed scrips as pre-arranged transaction - HELD THAT - We find that losses incurred by the assessee which the ld. AO has alleged to be bogus are losses incurred by it in the regular course of business considering corroborative material placed on record and the submission made. The said loss so incurred by the assessee deserves to be set off against its regular business profit. AO completely overlooked various documents supporting evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee. He has not analysed all these and merely proceeded to make the addition based on investigation reports. There is nothing brought on record to demonstrate that name of the assessee finds place in the investigation reports to hold that it is involved in price rigging of the alleged two scrips as penny stock. Merely because some shareholders/operators colluded in the alleged rigging of share prices and merely because assessee was benefited indirectly cannot be the reason to disallow the claim of loss by the assessee by alleging that assessee has participated in price rigging of the two scrips. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition made on arbitrary basis towards alleged commission paid by the assessee for availing the above stated business loss - Since we have already allowed the claim of assessee on the claim of business loss in the aforesaid two scrips the addition made towards commission is in respect of this very business loss and consequently deserved to be deleted. Ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

(a) Whether the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid and in accordance with the conditions prescribed by law;

(b) Whether the business loss of Rs. 3,28,92,419/- arising from sale of certain listed shares (alleged penny stocks) was rightly disallowed by treating the transactions as pre-arranged and bogus;

(c) Whether the addition of Rs. 9,86,772/- on account of alleged commission paid for availing the business loss was justified;

(d) Whether the Assessing Officer violated principles of natural justice by not providing opportunity for cross-examination or sharing statements relied upon in the assessment order.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Validity of Reopening under Section 147

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 147 of the Income-tax Act permits reopening of assessments if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The conditions precedent include recording of reasons and issuance of notice under section 148. The reopening must be based on tangible material and not mere change of opinion.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the reopening was initiated based on information received from various Investigation Wing offices alleging transactions in penny stocks. The assessee had filed objections against the reasons recorded, which were disposed of by the AO. However, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the validity of reopening as the appeal was allowed on merits of other grounds.

Key Evidence and Findings: The reopening was premised on investigation reports which were not shared with the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on such reports to allege escapement of income.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the appeal succeeded on merits, the Tribunal left the legal issues including reopening validity open without adjudication.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that conditions for reopening were not fulfilled and the reopening was bad in law. The Revenue relied on investigation inputs. The Tribunal did not decide this issue finally.

Conclusion: The issue remains undecided and kept open.

Issue (b): Disallowance of Business Loss on Sale of Shares

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Business losses are allowable if incurred in the ordinary course of business. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove that the loss is bogus or part of a pre-arranged transaction. Judicial precedents of coordinate benches (Munish Financials and Adihemshree Financial) were relied upon, which held that genuine losses in share trading business cannot be disallowed merely on suspicion or investigation inputs.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal carefully examined the nature and volume of business, the detailed documentary evidence furnished by the assessee including contract notes, bank statements, demat statements, broker ledgers, and the trading pattern. It found that the assessee was a regular trader with substantial turnover and that losses were inherent to the trading activity due to market volatility.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to analyze the extensive evidence and relied solely on investigation reports without demonstrating any direct involvement of the assessee in price rigging or manipulation. Mere indirect benefit from alleged rigging by other operators was insufficient to disallow the losses.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted detailed scrip-wise purchase and sale data, proving genuine transactions through recognized stock exchanges with payment of STT and margin money. The losses were consistent with the nature of trading and not isolated or unusual. No adverse regulatory action was taken by SEBI against the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the legal principles, the Tribunal held that the losses were bona fide business losses and deserved to be set off against business profits. The AO's addition was thus unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's contention rested on investigation reports and allegation of pre-arranged transactions. The assessee countered with voluminous documentary evidence and explanation of trading practices. The Tribunal sided with the assessee on the basis of evidence and judicial precedents.

Conclusion: The disallowance of business loss of Rs. 3,28,92,419/- was set aside and the loss was allowed to be set off.

Issue (c): Addition of Commission of Rs. 9,86,772/-

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Additions on arbitrary basis without evidence are impermissible. If the underlying business loss is allowed, related additions for alleged commission for arranging the loss cannot be sustained.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the Tribunal allowed the business loss, the addition of commission related to the same transaction was also deleted. The addition was held to be arbitrary and lacking evidentiary basis.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee denied paying any commission for arranging bogus losses. No documentary proof of such commission was presented by the Revenue.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that additions must be supported by evidence and cannot be arbitrary.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue relied on alleged commission as a percentage of disallowed loss. Assessee denied such payment. Tribunal found no evidence to sustain addition.

Conclusion: Addition of Rs. 9,86,772/- was deleted.

Issue (d): Violation of Natural Justice - Opportunity of Cross Examination and Sharing Statements

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and be provided copies of statements relied upon before adverse orders are passed.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that since the appeal succeeded on merits on other grounds, it did not adjudicate on this legal issue and kept it open.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee contended denial of opportunity to cross-examine and non-provision of statements. No detailed findings were recorded on this issue.

Application of Law to Facts: Left undecided due to success on merits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Issue kept open.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim extract:

"The losses incurred by the assessee which the ld. Assessing Officer has alleged to be bogus are losses incurred by it in the regular course of business considering corroborative material placed on record and the submission made. The said loss so incurred by the assessee deserves to be set off against its regular business profit. Ld. Assessing Officer completely overlooked various documents, supporting evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee. He has not analysed all these and merely proceeded to make the addition based on investigation reports. There is nothing brought on record to demonstrate that name of the assessee finds place in the investigation reports to hold that it is involved in price rigging of the alleged two scrips as penny stock. Merely because some shareholders/operators colluded in the alleged rigging of share prices and merely because assessee was benefited indirectly, cannot be the reason to disallow the claim of loss by the assessee by alleging that assessee has participated in price rigging of the two scrips."

Core principles established include:

• Genuine business losses arising from regular trading activities, even in volatile or speculative shares, cannot be disallowed merely on suspicion or on the basis of investigation reports without direct evidence.
• Reopening of assessment under section 147 must meet statutory conditions but if appeal is allowed on merits, legal issues regarding reopening may be left open.
• Additions made arbitrarily without evidentiary basis, such as alleged commission for arranging losses, are unsustainable.
• Principles of natural justice are fundamental but may remain unadjudicated if appeal is allowed on substantive grounds.

Final determinations on each issue were:

(a) Validity of reopening under section 147 - kept open;

(b) Disallowance of business loss of Rs. 3,28,92,419/- - set aside and loss allowed;

(c) Addition of commission of Rs. 9,86,772/- - deleted;

(d) Alleged violation of natural justice - kept open.