RAJKUMARI AGARWAL, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(1)4, MUMBAI

ITA 6392/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 639219914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEKH TILAK
• Keywords: Speculation loss; Retraction; Penny stocks
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM) .. , , ./I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SMT.RAJKUMARI AGARWAL, R NO.4, 2 ND FLOOR, 1/13, SHRI BHASKAR BHAVAN, SP MARG, MUMBAI-400002. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 14(1)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) ! ./ % ./PAN/GIR NO. : AADPA3405G !' & / APPELLANT BY : S/ SHRI NISHIT GANDHI AND ABHISHEKH TILAK #$!' ' & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN ( ) ' *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 14.7.2014 ,- ' *+ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.9.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 29- 08-2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI AND IT RELAT ES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ISSUE URGED BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE TAX AUT HORITIES ARE JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE SPECULATION PROFIT ARISING FROM COM MODITY TRADING AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE NARRATED AS U NDER BY LD CIT(A):- 3. . BRIEFLY STATED MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE GI VING RISE TO THE DISPUTE ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN SPECULATIVE PROFIT OF RS. 62,96,364/- AND ADJUSTED I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 2 AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AND I N RESULT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,52,560/- CONSISTING OF RENT INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME. THE AO ON NOTICING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN SPECULATION PROFIT OF RS.62,96,364/- HAVING SET OFF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF A.YS. 2001-02, 2000-01 AND 1999-2000 TO T HE EXTENT OF PROFIT, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS, WHICH WERE F ILED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF TWO CONTRACT CUM BILLS OF R IDDHI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD. (M/S.RSBL) BEARING CONTRACT NO.MCX/8501 DITED 6-3-06 AND MCX/9563 DATED 30-03-06. AS PER THE CONTRACT NOTE, MCX8501, THE COMMODITY DEALT IN WAS FUTCOMIGOLDAHM DATED 14-03-0 6 AND FUTCOMIGOLDDEL DATED 11-04-06 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS THUS NOTED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE EXECUTED AT TRADE TIME 15:4 2:17 TO 15:48:52 AS REGARD NO.MCX/8501 AND AT 22:24::42 TO 22:27:27 AS REGARDS CONTRACT NO.MXX/9563, AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HAVING EARNED A PROFIT ON THE FIRST CONTRACT AMOUNTING TO RS 78,2 4,199/- AND A LOSS OF RS 15,15,846/- ON THE OTHER, CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT OF W HICH WAS A PROFIT OF RS.63,08,353/- AND AFTER DEBITING THE EXPENSES, RES ULTED INTO A NET PROFIT OF RS.62,96,365/-. THE AO TO ASCERTAIN THE G ENUINENESS OF THE PURPORTED SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION, CARRIED OUT INVESTIGATION BY ISSUING LETTERS CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT FROM THE MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE (MCX), MUMBAI. THE DAT A SO RECEIVED INDICATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHAS E AND SALE OF THE CORRESPONDING PARTY WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT FROM T HE SAME TERMINAL I.E. M/S. RIDDHI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD.(RSBL). INFORM ATION U/S.133(6) WAS ALSO CALLED FROM M/S. RSBL AS WELL. AFTER GATHE RING THESE INFORMATION AND ON A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE SAME, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE IN BULLIO N DONE BY THE APPELLANT WAS CORRESPONDINGLY PERFORMED BY THE COUNTER PARTY FROM THE SAME TERMINAL OF M/S RSBL. THE AO THUS, TO FIND OUT M ORE FACTS RELATING TO THESE TRANSACTIONS, ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 TO THE C OUNTER PARTY VIZ. SHRI SHAILESH RANKA, IN WHOSE NAME CORRESPONDING TRANSAC TIONS WERE CARRIED OUT. BUT HE HAD CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING DONE A NY SPECULATION BUSINESS THROUGH RSBL AND ALSO DENIED HAVING ANY BA NK ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK IN HIS NAME. HE, HOWEVER, ADMITTED THE HANDWRITING AND SIGNATURES IN THE FORM KYC OBTAINED BY RSBL AND ST ATED THAT THE SIGNATURE WAS OBTAINED BY HIS UNCLE SHRI PRITHVIRAJ KOTHARI WHO IS THE OWNER OF RSBL. AS PER THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER BY THE AO, THE CORRESPONDING LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.63,08,35 3/- SUFFERED FROM THIS TRANSACTION IN THE NAME OF SHAIL ESH RANKA WHO WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, IS A CONSEQU ENTIAL RESULT OF THE IDENTICAL PURPORTED PROFIT CLAIMED HAVING EARNED FR OM SUCH TRANSACTION BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO, THUS, AFTER R ECORDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SHAILESH RANKA ON OATH U/S. 131 C ONFRONTED AND BROUGHT THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE STATEMENT, TO THE NOTICE OF THE AR OF THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 2 2-12-08 AND REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PURPORTED SPECULATION TRANSACTION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A SHAM TRANSACTION AND THE PURPORTED PROFIT CLAIMED HAVING EARNED, SHO ULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN REP LY TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY STATED THAT THE SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS DONE BY THE APPELLANT ARE SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUCH AS BROKER NOTES, BILLS A ND BANK 1 - I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 3 STATEMENTS THROUGH WHICH CHEQUES RECEIVED FROM RSBL WERE CREDITED AND THE BROKER HAS NOT DENIED THE SAID TRA NSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOUND TO KNOW THAT THE SAID TRANSAC TIONS OF LOSS IS FROM WHICH PARTY. THE CONSEQUENTIAL RESULT OF THIRD PART Y HAS NO BEARING TO THE GENUINE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, ET C. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, FOR THE REASON THAT CORRESPONDING COUNTER PARTY THROUGH WHO M THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED PROFIT AS WELL AS THE COUNTER PARTY EARNED L OSS, BEING NOT GENUINE AS THE PARTY IN WHOSE NAME THE TRANSACTION WAS CARR IED OUT HAD DENIED BEING AWARE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND ONCE THE LOSS FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS ON THE PART OF COUNTER PARTY HAVING FO UND TO BE NOT GENUINE, THE CORRESPONDING PROFIT TO SUCH LOSS ALSO BECOMES NOT GENUINE. THESE FACTS PUT A NON GENUINE STAMP ON THE TRANSACTIONS A ND DEMOLISHES THE BASIC EDIFICE ON WHICH THE TRANSACTION OF PROFIT FI NDS IT BASE OR ORIGIN. THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH MIS. RSBL BY BOTH THE PARTIES ARE THUS MANIPULATED ONE AS THE COUNTER PARTY VIZ. SHRI SHAILESH RANKA W AS FOUND TO BE NOT ONLY A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE BROKER RSBL BUT ALSO W HO WAS INDEBTED TO HIM DUE TO FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT. THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED OUT MERELY TWO TRANSACTIONS IN THE ENTIRE YEAR ON THE S AME TWO DATES IN THE FAG END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. THUS, THE TRANSACTION IS AN ARRANGED TRANSACTION AND NOT A GE NUINE TRANSACTION. ON THESE BASES, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE SAID TRAN SACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT ARE SHAM AND MANIPULATED TRANSACTI ON AND THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE COUNTER PARTY SHRI SHAILESH RANKA ALSO CARRIED OUT THE TRANSACTION FROM THE SAM E TERMINAL AND HE HAPPENED TO BE THE RELATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE BROKING FIRM . FURTHER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ABOVE SAID SHRI SHAILESH RANKA DID NOT CARRY ON THE SPECULATION ACTIVITY IN THE PAST OR IN THE FUTURE. FURTHER, BY PLACING RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD M ORE (82 ITR 540), THE LD CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING A AMATEUR TRADER OF FEW MINUTES IN TWO DAYS, COULD HA VE MADE A PROFIT OF RS.63 LAKHS. FURTHER THE LD CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RA MESH KUMAR D JAIN VS. ITO (ITA NO.3192/MUM/2010 DATED 15.6.2011 FOR AY 20 06-07), WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF HUGE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON PURC HASE AND SALE OF PENNY STOCKS WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACTS WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO TWO TRANSACTIONS OF TRADING IN GOLD IN THE MCX MARKET, ONE ON 06-03- 2006 AND ANOTHER ONE ON 30- 03-2006. THE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE AO WITH THE MCX E XCHANGE REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN FACT, CARRIED OUT THE ABOVE SAID T RANSACTION THROUGH ON LINE COMPUTER SYSTEM FROM THE TERMINAL OF A BROKER NAMED M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD. IN THE TRANSACTION CARRIED ON 06-03-2006, THE ASSESSEE MADE A PROFIT OF RS.78,24,198/- AND IN THE TRANSACTION CARRIED ON 30 -03-2006, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.15,15,846/-, THUS RESULTING I N A NET GAIN OF RS.63,08,352/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS SPEC ULATIVE PROFIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATION LOSSES, SH E ADJUSTED THE SAME AGAINST THE GAIN EARNED BY HER DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO, IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THE CORRESPONDING TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE WAS CARRIED OUT BY A PERSON NAMED SHRI SHAILESH RANKA THROUGH M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO GREW SUSPICION ABOUT THE CLAIM OF GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE SUMMONED SHRI SHAILESH RANKA A ND TOOK STATEMENT FROM HIM, WHEREIN THE SAID PERSON DENIED THE ENTIRE TRAN SACTIONS. HE, HOWEVER, ADMITTED THAT THE HANDWRITING AND SIGNATURE AVAILAB LE IN KYC (KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER) FORM ARE HIS OWN HANDWRITING. HOWEVER, H E SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FORM WAS OBTAINED BY HIS UNCLE SHRI PRITHVIRAJ KOTH ARI, WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE OWNER OF M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD. UNDER THE SE SET OF FACTS, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLUDED WI TH WITH THE STOCK BROKER CITED ABOVE IN ORDER TO GET SPECULATION PROFIT. ACCORDIN GLY THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED HER OWN FUNDS ONLY IN THE F ORM OF SPECULATION PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF SPECULATI ON PROFIT AND PROCEEDED TO ASSESS THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.63,08,352/- AS I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIR ST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ITAT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WIT H THE DIRECTION TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI S HAILESH RANKA. IN THE CROSS EXAMINATION, SHRI SHAILESH RANKA RETRACTED FROM HIS EARLIER STATEMENT AND I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 5 ADMITTED AS HAVING CARRIED OUT THE IMPUGNED TRANSAC TIONS. HOWEVER, THE AO DISBELIEVED THE SAID STATEMENT ON THE REASONING THA T HE IS WORKING WITH THE STOCK BROKER AND HENCE HE WAS CONSTRAINED TO GIVE STATEME NT TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE SAME REASONING AS WELL AS ON THE REASONING THAT IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING AN AMATEUR TRAD ER, COULD HAVE MADE PROFIT IN JUST TWO TRANSACTIONS, THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRM ED THE CHANGE OF HEAD OF INCOME. 8. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, WE NOTIC E THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY S HRI SHAILESH RANKA, WHO HAD CARRIED OUT CORRESPONDING PURCHASE AND SALE TRA NSACTIONS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PROFIT OF RS.63,08,353/-, THE ABOVE SAI D PERSON SHOULD HAVE MADE A CORRESPONDING LOSS. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY OR OBTAINED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOSS INCURRED BY HIM AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SETTLED THE LOSS ETC. WHEN IT I S ESTABLISHED THAT THE OTHER PERSON HAS CARRIED OUT THE COUNTER TRANSACTIONS AND INCURRED LOSS, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO HOW THE TAX AUTHORITIES COULD PLACE RELIANCE ON THE ORAL STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE OTHER PARTY WITHOUT ESTABLIS HING THE VERACITY OF THE SAME WITH ANY DOCUMENT. THE MANNER OF SETTLEMENT OF LOS S BY THE OTHER PARTY, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD HAVE THROWN LIGHT ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION. 9. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS CARRIED OUT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION THROUGH AN AUTHORIZED BROKER IN A RECOG NIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASE AND SOLD GOLD IN THE IMPUGN ED TWO TRANSACTIONS. THE GOLD IS AN INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AND ITS PRICE MOVEMENT IS BASED UPON THE WORLD ECONOMY. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT INDIAN GOLD PRICE IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE INTERNATIONAL GOLD PRICE. HENCE, UNLIKE P ENNY STOCKS WHERE THE PRICE MOVEMENT MIGHT BE CONTROLLED BY FEW INTERESTED PERS ONS, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE PRICE MOVEMENT OF GOLD COULD BE CONTROLLED FEW PERS ONS. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE STOCK BROKER M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI BU LLIONS LTD COULD HAVE CONTROL OVER THE PRICE MOVEMENT OF GOLD. FURTHER WE HAVE A LREADY NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A PROFIT OF ABOUT RS.78.24 LAKHS IN T HE FIRST TRANSACTION AND INCURRED A LOSS OF ABOUT RS.15.15 LAKHS IN THE SEC OND TRANSACTION. THERE IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT TH E LOSS IS ALSO MANAGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLLUSION WITH THE STOCK BROKER. IN TH E ONLINE TRADING OF AN I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 6 INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY, THE BUYERS ORDER AND SELL ERS ORDER ARE MATCHED BY THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTERVENTION. HENCE, THERE MAY NOT BE ANY ROLE OF ANY HUMAN BEING, INCLUDING THE STOCK BR OKER IN MATCHING THE TRANSACTIONS. IN ANY CASE, IT IS NOT SHOWN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES AS TO HOW THE STOCK BROKER COULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE MATCHING OF TRANSACTIONS. 10. ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT WE NOTICE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY ENQUIRY WITH THE OWNER OF M/S RIDDHI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD. EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTER PARTY SHRI SHAILESH RANKA HAS DE NIED THE TRANSACTION IN THE STATEMENT, YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT THOUGH T IT FIT TO EXAMINE THE OWNER TO FIND OUT THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHR I SHAILESH RANKA, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN SHRI SHAILESH RANKA ADMITS THAT H E HAS FILLED UP AND SIGNED THE KYC FORM. FURTHER, THE AO DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY E NQUIRY WITH MCX EXCHANGE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE STOCK BROKER COULD MANA GE ON LINE TRANSACTIONS. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUS TIFIED IN SIMPLY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN SHRI SHAILESH RANKA WITHOUT CROSS VERIFYING THE SAME AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLIS H ITS VERACITY. THE RETRACTION OF THE EARLIER STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI SHAILESH RANKA HAS ALSO BEEN SIMPLY REJECTED ON THE REASONING THAT HE HAPPENED TO BE A RELATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE BROKER, WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY WITH THE BROKER. 11. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL ASPECTS SURROUNDING T HE ACTIVITY OF TRADING OF GOLD FUTURES, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE STOCK BROKER COULD HAVE MANAGED THE PRICE MOVEMENTS AND COULD HAVE MANAGED THE MATCHING OF TRANSACTIONS ALSO. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH SUP PORTING MATERIALS, COULD ESTABLISH HIS BELIEF THAT THE STOCK BROKER HAS MANAGED THE TR ANSACTIONS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY LD CIT(A) ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DU RGA PRASAD MORE (SUPRA) MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE SPECULATION PROFIT DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED PROFIT AS SPECU LATION PROFIT ONLY. I.T.A. NO.6392/MUM/2012 7 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH SEPT , 2014. ,- ( ./ 0 1 17TH SEPT, 2014 - ' ) 2 SD SD ( /SANJAY GARG) ( .. / B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ( ) MUMBAI: 17TH SEPT,2014. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ! '#$%& '&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$!' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( 4* ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. ( 4* / CIT CONCERNED 5. 56 #* 7 , + 7 , . ( ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 8) / GUARD FILE. 9 ( / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY : (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) + 7 , . ( ) /ITAT, MUMBAI