2013 (10) TMI 1087 - HC - Income Tax

Determination of cost of shares received as per family arrangement - Addition on account of staggering difference between the purchase and quoted price of the shares additions made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A) by observing that the assessee company came into existence on 13.04.1993 and the shares were purchased by the assessee in the month of May, 1993 and, therefore, the AO was wrong in adopting the market price of the shares as on 31.03.1994. Held that - Two groups belongs to the Oswal family and were fighting each other since long and finally, dispute was settled by the Company Law Board as per the orders dated 25.09.1992 and 29.07.1993. Therefore, in such a settlement, there is no question of paying any extra money to other group outside the books of account - AO has made the addition only on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjunctures and is not based on cogent material on record Decided against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition regarding the difference between purchase and quoted price of shares.
2. Justification of transaction as a family arrangement.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the difference between the purchase price and quoted price of shares. The AO contended that the assessee paid an extra price below the market rate for purchasing shares. However, the first appellate authority and the Tribunal both ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the AO incorrectly adopted the market price as on a later date than the actual purchase. The Tribunal found no cogent material to support the addition, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.

2. The second issue revolves around the justification of the transaction as a family arrangement. The Department argued that the settlement order did not include the assessee's name and that the Board of Directors did not belong to the mentioned group. However, the Court noted that a family settlement had indeed taken place between the two groups belonging to the Oswal family, as per the Company Law Board's decisions. The settlement was aimed at resolving long-standing disputes within the family, and there was no evidence of any extra payment outside the books of account. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the addition made by the AO was based on presumption and lacked substantial evidence.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee on both substantial questions of law. The judgment highlights the importance of substantiated evidence in tax assessments and the recognition of family settlements as valid transactions, particularly in resolving intra-family disputes.