9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. Additionally a letter was written by assessee company objecting to the material published in the article which was the basis, on which the A.O. has passed the assessment order. In this letter to the Editor of Economic Times, the assessee states that the article per se did not speak about any amount being received by the assessee and only speaks of consideration received by the shareholders. Given the same, no specific action was taken by the assessee or any of its Directors at the time the news article was published. Transaction of sale of shares by the investors is distinct and separate from the sale of shares undertaken in August, 2012. Neither the assessee nor the investors have received the said amount of USD 30 million. The amount has been reported in the news articles relied upon by the A.O. without carrying out adequate due diligence and without being ratified by the assessee or the investors. We are of the view that the assessment in the instant case has been concluded based on a news article which does not in any case constitute adequate material on record. Accordingly, addition made by the A.O., has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received an amount of USD 30 million as proceeds for sale of Urban Touch. ii. The A.O. contended that the income from sale of shares has not been disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. iii. The A.O. contended that the assessee wrongly claimed an amount of INR 300,000 was received on the sale of domain. iv. The A.O. contended that the assessee has concealed material facts during the course of the assessment proceedings. 3.1 The relevant finding of the A.O. in making the addition of ₹ 152,31,66,000/- reads as follows: 11. As per the news reported by Economic Times (reproduced earlier), the consideration has been received in both cash as well as in stock. Though the share purchase agreements produced are unsigned, the benefit of doubt is granted to the assessee and credit for the said stock is considered as the sale consideration received by the respective shareholders. The amount received by the two shareholders, Tiger Global and Accel India as well as the other three small share holders is ₹ 12,23,34,000/-. The total consideration reported to have been received by the assessee is 30 million USD which works out to ₹ 164.55 cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as follows: . Judicial notice cannot be taken of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in s. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under s. 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proof of facts reported therein. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible -in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appealing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The aforementioned principle has also been upheld in the following cases: State Of Haryana And Others vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Another Shri (AIR 1993 SC 1348); S.P Shenbagamoorthy vs Dr. Clienna Reddy, The Governor (1994) 2 MLJ 23; and Ratan Lal Soni vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors.(1994 (1) WLC 679). Additionally the appellant company has submitted letter written to the Editor of Economic Times, and stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported, I am of the view that the action of the Assessing Officer in concluding that the appellant has received USD 30 million (₹ 167 crores) in cash based on the news report without verifying the veracity is not justified, therefore, the grounds of appeal are hereby allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. D.R. relied on the grounds raised. The Ld. A.R. on the other hand reiterated the submissions made before the Income tax authorities and relied on the findings of the CIT(A). The A.R. has also filed a paper book inter-alia enclosing therein, Audit Financial Statement for A.Y. 2013-14, written submission and Annexure filed before the A.O. and CIT(A), etc. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. The assessee was incorporated in Bangalore as a private limited company during FY 2010-11 with a paid up share capital of INR 1,00,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee company receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 36,500 Series A Preference Shares 8,333 Series B Preference Shares 3,50,17,255 Mr. Sachin Bansal 800 Equity shares 7,78,400 Mr. Binny Bansal 800 Equity shares 7,78,400 Mr. Mukesh Bansal 800 Equity shares 7,78,400 Total 12,23,35,205 8. A copy of declaration filed regarding transfer of shares from non-resident to resident in Form FC-TRS evidencing the transfer of shares from Tiger and Accel to Goldsquare is on record (page Nos. 171 to 178 of the Paper book filed). Subsequent to the transfer of shares, the business of assessee was consolidated under Goldsquare. Mr. Abhishek Goyal (who was a director in Reindeer) was appointed as a CEO and also admitted to the Board of Directors in Goldsquare. During March, 2003, owing to certain issues and the fact that the assessee company was running into huge losses the Company sold off all its assets and the domain name of www.urbantouch.com operated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation contained in the news article was not ratified by the assessee. In this connection, we place reliance on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmi Raj Shetty and Anr Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1988 AIR 1274), which held as follows: Judicial notice cannot be taken of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidences, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in s. 78(2) of the Evidence Act, by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under s. 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proof of facts reported therein. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The aforementioned principle has also been upheld in the following cases: 1. State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another Shri (AIR 1993 SC 1348)\ 2. S.P. Shenbagamoorthy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
