9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 646 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - In the light of Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. ACIT 2014 (3) TMI 534 - ITAT MUMBAI in which it was held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) would not apply to bonus shares. ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Satija, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurgaon 2017 (1) TMI 1677 - ITAT DELHI , on identical facts quashed the proceedings under section 263 . Therefore, ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Meenu Satija, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurgaon (supra), squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether this order have been passed under section 263 or merit would not make any difference. The principle of law have been clearly decided in favour of the assessee on the identical facts. The Tribunal has also relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. ACIT 2014 (3) TMI 534 - ITAT MUMBAI which is relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) as well. No infirmity have been pointed out in the Order of Ld. CIT(A). The issue is, therefore, covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Meenu Satija, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurgaon (supra). The Departmental Appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the allotment of bonus shares. 2. Interpretation of the legislative intent behind Section 56(2)(vii). 3. Relevant case laws and precedents impacting the interpretation of Section 56(2)(vii). Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) to Bonus Shares The primary issue in this case was whether the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertain to the taxation of property received without consideration or for inadequate consideration, apply to the allotment of bonus shares. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had made an addition of ?1,61,05,074 to the income of the assessee, asserting that the fair market value of the bonus shares received exceeded the consideration paid, invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(c). However, the assessee contended that bonus shares should not fall under this provision, citing the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2010 and the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. ACIT. Issue 2: Interpretation of Legislative Intent Behind Section 56(2)(vii) The legislative intent behind Section 56(2)(vii) was scrutinized, particularly focusing on its anti-abuse nature aimed at preventing the laundering of unaccounted income under the guise of gifts. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2010 clarified that the provision was intended to tax transactions involving the transfer of shares at prices significantly below their fair market value to prevent tax evasion. However, it was not intended to apply to transactions in the normal course of business or trade, such as the issuance of bonus shares. Issue 3: Relevant Case Laws and Precedents The case relied heavily on precedents, particularly the ITAT, Mumbai Bench's decision in Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. ACIT, which held that the issuance of bonus shares does not result in any increase or decrease in the wealth of the shareholder or the issuing company. The decision emphasized that bonus shares are merely a capitalization of profits and do not constitute a transfer of property. This view was supported by the Supreme Court's observations in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. CIT, which stated that the issuance of bonus shares is a capitalization of undivided profits and does not result in a gift or accretion to property. Judgment Analysis: The ITAT Delhi Bench upheld the decision of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition made by the A.O. The CIT(A) had relied on the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2010 and the ITAT, Mumbai Bench's decision in Sudhir Menon (HUF) vs. ACIT. The CIT(A) concluded that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) were not intended to apply to the issuance of bonus shares, as these do not involve a transfer of property or result in an increase in the shareholder's wealth. The ITAT Delhi Bench also referred to its own decision in Meenu Satija vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurgaon, which had quashed proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on similar grounds. The Tribunal reiterated that the principle of law established in these precedents clearly favored the assessee, and the addition made by the A.O. was not in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c) do not apply to the issuance of bonus shares. The judgment reinforced the interpretation that bonus shares are a capitalization of profits and do not constitute a transfer of property or an accretion to wealth that would attract taxation under Section 56(2)(vii)(c). The decision was consistent with legislative intent and supported by relevant case laws and judicial precedents.
|
