Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions

Submit your Comments

Contents
Plus+

In-Depth Analysis of the Judgement on Share Premium Addition u/s 68

Reported as:

2024 (5) TMI 710 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Introduction

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of a recent judgement by the Calcutta High Court concerning the addition of share premium u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case revolves around the assessment of a newly incorporated company that allotted shares to individuals and companies at different premiums on consecutive days, raising suspicions about the genuineness of the transactions.

Arguments Presented

Revenue's Contentions

The revenue contended that the assessee company allotted shares to five individuals on 30.03.2012 without any premium at the face value of Rs. 10/-, and on the very next day, 31.03.2012, allotted shares to two companies with a share premium of Rs. 4990/- per share. The revenue argued that the assessee failed to comply with the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant difference in share premiums charged on consecutive days.

Assessee's Arguments

The assessee argued that the summons u/s 131 was never served, and even if it was, the assessee had responded to the notice u/s 142(1) by providing all the required details. The assessee claimed that the premium was justified as the company intended to invest in land development projects, and the high premium reflected the anticipated profits from such ventures.

Discussions and Findings of the Court

Burden of Proof

The court reiterated the well-established principle that the assessee bears the burden of proving the identity of the investors, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere production of incorporation details or payment through banking channels is not sufficient to discharge this burden.

Creditworthiness and Genuineness

The court examined the financial statements of one of the companies that subscribed to shares at a premium, Astbhuja Mercantile Private Limited, and found that it lacked creditworthiness, having earned a meager profit and owning no tangible or intangible fixed assets. The court also questioned the rationale behind charging such a high premium when the assessee itself claimed to have no noticeable business activity during the year.

Doctrine of "Source of Source"

The court discussed the doctrine of "source of source" or "origin of origin," stating that it should be applied judiciously based on the factual matrix of each case. The doctrine cannot be used as a camouflage to circulate unaccounted money, and the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transactions.

Analysis and Decision by the Court

The court found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, as required u/s 68. The significant difference in share premiums charged on consecutive days, the lack of business activities or asset base to justify such a high premium, and the questionable financial standing of the subscribing companies all contributed to the court's decision.

The court upheld the findings of the lower authorities, concluding that the assessee did not discharge the burden of proof and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Relied upon or Followed Judgements

The court relied upon the following judgements in its analysis:

Summary of the Judgement

The Calcutta High Court, in this judgement, upheld the principles established by various judicial precedents regarding the burden of proof on the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions involving share capital and premium. The court meticulously examined the facts of the case, including the financial statements of the subscribing companies, the discrepancies in share premiums charged on consecutive days, and the lack of business activities or asset base to justify the high premium.

The court emphasized that mere compliance with formalities, such as incorporation details or payment through banking channels, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The assessee must provide cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions, failing which the addition u/s 68 would be justified.

The court also discussed the doctrine of "source of source" and cautioned against its misuse as a means to circulate unaccounted money. The doctrine should be applied judiciously, considering the factual matrix of each case.

Ultimately, the court found that the assessee failed to establish the required elements u/s 68 and dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the lower authorities.

Full Text:

2024 (5) TMI 710 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT