Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act would transpire that the reasons recorded were due to issue of equity shares at a very high share premium of Rs. 90/- per share raised by a private company viz. assessee company, aggregating to Rs.1,74,53,700/- on issue of 1,93,930 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10 each on share premium of Rs.90 per share. The reopening is based on the information received by the AO from learned CCIT as to very high premium charged by the assessee on issue of equity shares. The said information as explained by learned DR was based on information from DGIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation ).On being asked by the Bench it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that Mr. Bharat Mishra and Mrs. Manju Lahoti are the two Promoters/Directors of the assessee company. It was explained that the funds so raised by way of share capital/share premium from all other persons except Mr Bharat Mishra, M/s. Bharat Mishra, HUF I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2017 and Mrs. Manju Lahoti , were from outsiders having no connection with Promoters/Directors and having no participation in management of the assessee company . It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee is a closely held private company. Thus majority of the funds to the tune of Rs. 1,75,68,000/- , out of total funds of Rs. 1,94,93,000/- raised by the assessee, were received from outsiders who are not connected with the promoters/Directors of the assessee company nor with the management of the assessee company, while the Promoters/Directors of the assessee company had pumped in only Rs.19,25,000/- in the assessee company towards share capital/share premium. The contribution of the promoters is barely 9.88% in total funds raised by the assessee in the shape of share capital and share premium , while 90.12% of the total fund infusion in the assessee company was from outsiders having no connection with the assessee company and that too the share capital was subscribed by outsiders at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share as against face value of Rs. 10/- per share in a newly incorporated company i.e. assessee having no asset base or visible business activities as is discernible from the financial statements placed before the tribunal. The assessee company is a newly incorporated private company and large amount of fund infusion took place in the assessee company from outsiders who are not connected with the assessee company while promoters only infused 9.88% of the total fund infused in the assessee company. Thus, when a newly incorporated private company having no established background or track record of business issues shares at whopping premium of Rs. 90/- per share as against face value of Rs. 10/- per share and huge amount of funds are raised from outsiders , it certainly is a justifiable reason for triggering an enquiry into the funds raised by a newly incorporated company and to see that illegitimate money of promoters are not circulated back into the assessee company through circuitous route which is not uncommon in India , more-so when no scrutiny assessment is framed by Revenue originally u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act as the return of income was I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2017 originally processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and re-opening is sought to be done within four years from the end of the assessment year. The first proviso to Section 147 of the 1961 Act is clearly not applicable in the instant case. The receipt of information by AO from learned CCIT on the basis of information from DGIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) to verify a very high share premium and share capital aggregating to Rs.1,93,93,000/- and that too by a newly incorporated company having no business track record nor having any asset base, is a credible incriminating information to trigger an enquiry keeping in view surrounding circumstances and it cannot be simply brushed aside as merely making a fishing enquiry more-so it is well known that Indian Economy is plagued with a monstrous parallel economy and nefarious money laundering activities which is eating into economic fabric of India which even led to drastic steps being taken by Government of India by way demonetisation of its currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 overnight in 2016. Thus, under these circumstances it became absolutely essential to look into huge amount of money raised by the company from outsider soon after its incorporation by way of share capital at huge share premium while its financial statements did not supported issuing shares at such a huge share premium as it did not have asset base nor had any visible business in hand and that too to the outsiders who invested as much as 90.12% of total share capital including share premium while promoters/directors merely invested 9.88% and initially no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was made wherein return was accepted u/s 143(1) and reopening is sought to be done within 4 years from the end of assessment year. The assessee has shown meagre income of Rs. 15,712/- in its first year of operation ending on 31.03.2009 with gross turnover of Rs. 1,89,000/- coming from Interest and Maintenance as reported in financial statements produced before the tribunal, after its incorporation on 14.01.2009. The assessee did not have any asset base as on 31.03.2009 which could reflect visible business activities being persued by the assessee and no business was being run per-se I.T.A. No.4648/Mum/2017 as the gross income reported is from interest and maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,89,000/- . The asset base consisted of investments in shares of other private companies to the tune of Rs. 1.20 crores and advancing certain loans and advances to the tune of Rs. 71 lacs. This is how the proceeds of raising of share capital and share premium was deployed by the assessee which indicates diversion of funds for non business purposes. There is no project per-se being undertaken by the assessee company as is emanating from the records before us. The assessee has claimed that valuation report was filed using Discounted Cash flow method but the same is not filed before the Bench. The Balance Sheet typically represented of the entry operators engaged in providing accommodation entries and definitely needed further probe/verification by Revenue , more-so no scrutiny assessment was so far conducted by the Revenue as returns were originally processed u/s 143(1) and reopening was sought to be done within four years from the end of the assessment year.

Thus , it is an harsh reality that India is facing a menace of parallel economy which the Courts can not shut their eyes to these realities plaguing the Indian economy and destroying the economic fabric of India. It is in this directions to control these menace , measures like Prevention of Money Laundering Act , Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act ,1988 and Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act,1988 were brought into statute by Parliament. The drastic measures like demonetisation of currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 taken by Government Of India are the steps to curb these menace only. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500(SC), wherein Hon‟ble Supreme Court upheld reopening in the case wherein originally return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act, by holding as under: