9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination could not be performed. Besides, the amendment to section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act is applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 and not to the year under consideration and therefore the question of issuing shares at a premium can not be examined in this year and also addition can not be made. We find that on the date of issue of shares, the intrinsic value of the share as on 31.03.2007 was 411.80 and therefore the observation of the AO that shares were issued at a very high price is wrong and against the facts of the case. We have also perused the decisions referred to and relied by the ld. AR of the assessee in support of his arguments and found them to be squarely applicable to the assessee's case. In this case, the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it by filing the necessary documents before the AO as well as CIT(A). Moreover in absence of cross examination of the persons whose statements were relied by the AO, the addition can not be made in view of the fact that specific prayers to the AO to this effect were made before the AO. In view of the above discussion and facts of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 28.03.2015 and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in investments in shares, securities and also trading in shares as mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order. The AO observed that the intrinsic value of the share of the company as on 31.03.2007 was ₹ 10 and as on 31.03.2008 ₹ 10.57, if the share premium is not included in the capital. The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that assessee has received share premium of ₹ 1,80,00,000/- during the year from group companies belonging to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain as per detail herein under: Sr. No. Name of the Company Amount 1. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd. ₹ 15,00,000/- 2. Nakashtra Business Pvt. Ltd. ₹ 30,00,000/- 3. Triangular Infocom Ltd. ₹ 45,00,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of the assessment proceedings itself. The statement-is reproduced in the assessment order. It is highly improbable that the director Shri Deepak Singhvi could not name the person who was contacted for investing in the appellant company when such investors are the largest shareholder in the appellant company. If such large investment was made, it is again unbelievable that such investor will not nominate/its own director and not attend the AGM of the appellant company. When queried why it had to obtain details of investors from ROC, it turned out that the investors had since then transferred the shares to Singhvi family, the promoters. Details were called including copy of share transfer memo and the purchasers bank statement, return of income and computation of income. This was not submitted though from details filed it is clear that all shares invested to by these 5 investors have been purchased by the Singhvi family and at par. Why would any investor invest ₹ 400/share only to sell it to the original promoter family for ₹ 10 per share? All these peculiar facts, show that the transactions are not genuine. 5.9. In the facts of the case, the additions made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Agrotech P. Ltd. v/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad. (ITAT Hyderabad) 9. ITO-4(2)(4), Mumbai. v/s. M/s. Kushboo Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 10. Income Tax Officer-3(2)(4), Mumbai. v/s. M/s. Pyramid Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 11. Aim Properties Investment Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Income Tax Officer, 5(1)(1), Mumbai. (ITAT Mumbai) 12. Sudhanshu Suresh Pandhare v/s. ITO Ward 21(3)(2), Mumbai. (IT AT Mumbai) 13. ITO-10(2)(3), Mumbai. V/s. J J Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) 14. M/s. SDB Estate Pvt. Ltd. v/s. ITO-5(3)(2), CIT(A) 10, Mumbai. (ITAT Mumbai) 15. Bharti Syntex Ltd. v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, (ITAT Jaipur) 16. ITO vs. M/s. Ahaan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. IT A No. 5904/Mum/2017 7. The second plea of the assessee is that the share capital has been raised at a premium by issuing shares with face value of ₹ 10 at a premium of ₹ 390 was in fact on the basis of balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2007 according to which the intrinsic value of the share works out to ₹ 411 per share. Therefore, objection of the AO as per para 2 of the assessment order that the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23. CIT v/s. M/S. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd. ITA No. 52 of 2001(HC-Calcutta) 24. CIT v/s. Vacmet Packaging (India) (P.) Ltd. 45 Taxmann.com 204 (HC-Allahabad) 25. CIT v/s. Gangeshwari Metal (P.) Ltd. 30 taxmann.com 328 (HC-Delhi) 26. ACIT v/s. Venkateshwar Ispat (P.) Ltd. 319 ITR 393 (HC-Chhattisgarh) 27. CIT v/s. Nav Bharat Duplex Ltd. 35 Taxmann.com 289 (HC-Allahabad) 28. CIT v/s. Samir Bio-Tech (P.) Ltd. 325 ITR 294 (HC-Delhi) 29. Mod Creations (P.) Ltd. v/s. ITO 13 Taxmann.com 114 (HC-Delhi) 30. CIT v/s. Jay Dee Securities Finance Ltd. 32 taxmann.com 91 (HC-Allahabad) 31. Jaya Securities Ltd. v/s. CIT 166 taxman 7 (HC-Allahabad) 32. Pr. CIT vs. Apeak Infotech 397 ITR 148 (Bom-HC) 33. Pr. CIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd. 403 ITR 415(Bom-HC) 34. Pr. CIT vs. Vaishnodevi refoils Solvex 96 Taxmann.com 469 (SC) 100 CCH 228 (Guj-HC) 8. The Ld. A.R. also argued that amendment in section 56(2)(vii)(b) was effective from A.Y. 2013-14 and therefore not applicable to the instant year and the assessee was at liberty to issue share at a premium as this was a business decision of the assessee and tax authorities have no role ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an exorbitant rate of ₹ 390/- per share of the face value of ₹ 10 each despite the fact that assessee has not carried out any business and has very meager income. The Ld. D.R. also pointed out that the investors who purchased the share for ₹ 400 per share have sold the same back to the promoters at ₹ 10 per share and this fact has been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.8 of the appellate order and the assessee failed to place on record the necessary evidences and information qua the purchase and sale of shares by the promoters of the assessee company despite being specifically asked by the appellate authority which shows that the intentions of the assessee were not good and assessee wants to conceal the information from the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. also tried to distinguish the case laws relied upon by the Ld. A.R. by submitting that in the present case the money has been received through accommodation entries and therefore these investments are not genuine and rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by upholding the order of AO. 11. In the rebuttal, the Ld. A.R. referred to the page No. 11 of the paper book in A.Y. 2008-09 and drew the attention o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
