Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the assessee company is into such business wherein, various, i.e., more than thousands of orders are received and executed during the business hours of a single day and correspondingly the price of security/ shares etc., also fluctuates with every nano second, therefore practically it can be understood that, the punching of orders by the employees is always in a haste. He submitted that employees or staff working in this department are punching the orders in haste and hence undoubtedly, the task would be more prone to some human errors. In view of the above, there are certain client code modifications done by the assessee company, on account of punching of incorrect particulars of client code, at the time of punching of orders from them. He submitted that these errors are normal and routine errors accruing from the nature of business. The information regarding client code information is sought by the department from the exchange only. Therefore, there could be no doubt that the transactions executed were in accordance with the guidelines of exchange, otherwise the same would not have been allowed by the exchange. He submitted that the guidelines of exchange in this behalf also acknowledges the 1% of modifications as tolerable and genuine error. However beyond 1%, there are some minor penalty described by the exchange. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A) while deleting the addition has observed that the volume of Client Code Modification occurred, are within the permissible limit allowed by the SEBI and the Exchange/SEBI, has not found any violation of rules and regulations related to CCM, and the CCM transactions are falling within the prescribed limit of less than 1%. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of lncomtax-13 Vs. Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd.;