SAGITARIUS SECURITIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-22(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 30, New Delhi dated 26.07.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 1,49,60,000/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'].

The peculiar facts of the case are that the appellant company was incorporated in the year 1995 and since then, till date, is not doing any business but is only engaged in providing accommodation entries, as admitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee before the Bench.

The more peculiar fact is that during the year, in spite of zero business activities, the assessee company issued 8 lakhs shares, each of face value of Rs. 10/- to two companies, namely, M/s Elecon Securities Pvt Ltd and M/s Ordinary Financial Services Pvt Ltd.

This transaction becomes more scarier when we find that this issue of 8 lakhs shares was in consideration of 60,000 shares received by the assessee from the two companies to whom shares were allotted.

Since the assessee has received shares of value Rs. 6 crores each from M/s Elecon Securities Pvt Ltd and M/s Ordinary Financial Services Pvt Ltd., it valued its own shares at Rs. 75/- each, which comprises of face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 65/-. This entire transaction is something called “res ipsa loquitor” – Facts speaking their own story.

When the Assessing Officer confronted the assessee to explain the issue of 60,000 shares at Rs. 75/- per share, the assessee justified it by submitting a valuation report as per Rule 11UA of the IT Rules.

The report filed by the assessee and the reply was not accepted by the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that the basis of the valuation being balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 was not adopted in the Annual General Meeting of the company and hence it was not as

The assessee agitated the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee not only reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities, but also placed strong reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench at Chandigarh in the case of Electra Paper and Board Pvt Ltd and also on the decision of the co-ordinate bench at Chennai in the case of Vaani Estates Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 1352/Chny/2018 supported by referring to the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister while making the amendment.

The ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to the Valuation Certificate, which is at page 51 of the Paper Book.

Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and vehemently stated that the Assessing Officer has rightly valued the shares as per the relevant rules of the IT Rules, rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and there is no error or infirmity.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The peculiarity of the transaction has already been explained hereinabove. The bone of contention is as to whether the assessee has valued the shares as per the balance sheet of the valuation date 31.03.2014 in consonance with Rule 11U/11UA of the IT Rules.

Before proceedings further, let us consider the meaning of the Balance Sheet as given u/r 11U of the Rules and the same reads as under:

A bare perusal of the aforementioned rule shows that Balance Sheet should be drawn on the valuation date, which is 31.03.2014 in the present case, which has been audited by the auditor of the company and if these two conditions are not satisfied, then the balance sheet drawn up as on the date immediately preceding the valuation date which has been approved and adopted in the Annual General Meeting of the share holders of the company, which would be 31.03.2013 in the present case.

The Chandigarh Bench of ITAT had the occasion to decide whether it would be justifiable to accept the unaudited balance sheet as on the valuation date when the same has been audited at a later date with no material variance in the financials.

But in the case in hand, when the Bench asked the ld. counsel for the assessee about the unaudited balance sheet as on 31.03.2014, the ld. counsel for the assessee could not reply and instead, referred to the certificate of the auditors, which is as under:

The aforementioned certificate nowhere says that the valuer has considered the audited balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 which was approved and adopted in the Annual General meeting by the shareholders for the simple reason that it is practically impossible for any company to present the audited balance sheet of the F.Y. before the Annual General Meeting on the date of closing of the F.Y. i.e. 31st March. The certificate of the auditors is based on the statement and documents furnished by the company which is neither audited nor certified by the auditors.

On these peculiar facts, it would be a futile exercise to refer to the decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee which are totally based upon different set of facts. In fact, the reference to the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister goes against the assessee, in as much as, the Hon'ble Finance Minster had emphatically, inter alia, said:

This shows that even the Legislators put the onus of proof on the companies and in the case in hand, the assessee has miserably failed in discharging the onus.

The Assessing Officer found that the audited balance sheet of 31.03.2013 was approved by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting and, accordingly, computed the fair market value of the shares as per the balance sheet as on 31.03.2013 which, in our considered opinion, is as per the provisions of the Act read with the relevant rules of the IT Rules and cannot be faulted with.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed.