Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: proxy FORMS in Riddhi Petrochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 13(3)(1), Mumbai on 20 May, 2020Matching Fragments
14. Coming back to the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AO. The Ld.AO has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Riddhi Petrochem Pvt.Ltd.
the case of Major Metals vs Union of India (supra). We find that the Hon'ble High court has given its findings on the basis of findings recorded by the settlement commission in its order that in order to scrutinize, the genuineness of transactions, it had directed the petitioner to produce relevant records such as minutes books, attendance registers of AGMs, dispatch registers, share certificates and authorization of proxy forms amongst other documentary material. The order of the Settlement commission indicates at least fourteen reasons on the basis of which, the commission formed its view in regard to the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee has also failed to justify issue of shares at a huge premium of Rs. 990 per share on a face value of Rs. 10/-, in light of its financial statements. Under those facts, the Hon'ble High court came to the conclusion that alleged share capital/share application money received from certain parties is non genuine transactions. Insofar as, the case laws relied upon by the Ld. DR, in the case of PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.Ltd, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded categorically findings, in light of facts brought out by the Ld. AO that none of the shareholders have sufficient source of income to establish capacity, as required to be proved u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Further, in most of the cases, the assesee has not filed bank statement of the subscribers. Further, several investors companies were found to be non- existence, when the field enquiries conducted by the Ld. AO. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that mere furnishing certain evidences, in response to 133(6) notices is not sufficient enough and what is to be seen is whether, the assesee has discharged its onus cast upon u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961or not. In this case, on perusal of facts , it is abundantly clear that the subscriber to the share capital are closely Riddhi Petrochem Pvt.Ltd.