News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 Alodie Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle 2, Room No.363, 3rd Floor, E- 2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi – 110 055.
 M/s. Nutek India Ltd., New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle – 18 (2), Delhi.
 P. P. Mahatme, POA Lorna Margaret Pinto vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  17 LPA-Opening Chief Manager Accounts-chartered Accountant - CA
  90 LPA-Opening Chartered Accountant / Finance Manager/ Financial Officers
 BPTP Limited vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court)
 M/s. ATS Infrastructure Ltd., 711/92, Deepali, Nehru Place, New Delhi. PIN – 110 019. Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Noida.
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-60(4), Room No.315, 3rd Floor, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. Vs. Shri Brij Gopal Chauhan, Prop. M/s.V.K. Chauhan Paints & Sanitary Stores, H.No.82, Gali No.3, Village-Mamura,
 Rakesh Kumar Kalra A – 600, Sector - 46 Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar Uttar Pradesh Vs. The Income tax Officer Ward - 47(3) New Delhi
 ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi.Vs. Sh. Anil Aggarwal, H. No.67, Sector – 1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, UP
 M/s Clearview Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), New Delhi
 
 
 
 

M/s Clearview Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), New Delhi
January, 03rd 2020
                 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                    DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI


                BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                          ITA No. 2222/Del/2019
                        Assessment Year : 2014-15


M/S CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE             Vs.     ITO, WARD 6(2),
PVT. LTD.,                                   NEW DELHI
C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV.
F-26/124, SECTOR-7,
ROHINI,
DELHI ­ 110 085
(PAN: AAECC0475A)
 (Appellant)                                  (Respondent)


              Assessee by        :    Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv.
              Department by      :    Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR..


                                     ORDER

     This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed
by the Ld. CIT(A)-33, New Delhi on 15.10.2018 in relation to the assessment
year 2014-15.

2.   The facts in brief are that assessee filed its e-return on 17.11.2014
declaring   loss of Rs. 16,285/-. The return of the assesee was    processed
u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") on 25.5.2015 and
thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS.
Statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.8.2015 and duly
served upon the assessee. In response to the same, the AR of the assessee
attended the proceedings and filed the detailed as called for.   The assessee
company was incorporated on 29.1.2010. The assessee company is stated to
be engaged in the business of setting up advance machines for diagnosis
and treatment of cancer in association with hospitals all over India. The
details filed by the AR of the assessee were examined on test check basis
with reference to the books of accounts produced.         Thereafter, the AO
observed that the difference between the share premium received in excess
of valuation as determined under Rule 11UA of the Act amounting to Rs. 16
x 57,477 (Shares issued to resident shareholders namely Sh. Kamal Batra,
Sh. Pankaj Sudan and Sh. Pravin Jain) = Rs. 9,19,632/- was treated as
income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act
and added the same to the income of the assessee as income from other
sources u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act by completing the assessment at Rs.
9,03,350/- vide order dated 23.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
Against the assessment order dated 23.12.2016, assessee appealed before
the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 15.10.2018                has
dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that AO was justified in
limiting the price of shares of the company Rs. 144/- only and held that that
the addition of Rs. 9,19,632/- was justified. Against the impugned order,
assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.






3.    During the hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that lower
authorities have not appreciated that assessee does not come within
mischief of stated provision as manifest from cursory look to explanatory
memorandum to Finance Act, 2012 by which stated provision was brought
into the law and stated share premium is a clean money and so is not
covered within provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act (legislative intent
is to apply said provision where money received is not clean and is
unaccounted money received in garb of share premium where as no where it
is case of revenue that stated money is not clean money). It was further
submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming/sustaining the addition made
of Rs 9,19,632/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act in para 8.1 to 8.4 of his order by
not appreciating that genuineness of share premium gets established from

                                       2
impeccable fact that as far justification of share premium of here is
concerned, that on 01/12/2014 (during AY 2015-2016) share of Clearview
Healthcare Pvt Ltd were sold to Medipass SRL Italy @ 380.53 per share
(which in turn valued shares of Clearmedi Healthcare Private Limited @ 615
per share assessee herein) and for which necessary copy of resolution dated
20/12/2013 duly attested by Notary public of Italy were purveyed to        AO
durng assessment itself and it was categorically stated in our reply that said
transaction has actually taken place at agreed rate of Rs 380.53 per share of
Clearview Healthcare Pvt. Ltd (Rs 615 per share of Clearmedi Healthcare
Private Limited) for which in continuation to same we are relying on , share
purchase agreement dated 20/03/2014 and copy of income tax return of
seller of shares of Clearview Health care Pvt Ltd (Shahsi Baliyan)) etc which
is on records for adjudication as necessary plea was duly raised to AO. It
was further submitted that Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming/sustaining       the
addition made of Rs 9,19,632 u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act in para 8.1 to 8.4 of
his order by not appreciating that         Once share sale/purchase done
subsequently is considered at which shares of company are actually
transacted then it would not be difficult to accept that share premium
received in subject period is fully and completely justified and cannot be
interdicted as done by AO. It was further submitted that Ld CIT(A) erred in
not appreciating that when addition of Rs 919,632 /- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the
Act was palpably incorrect because after rejecting assessee's valuation no
valid substitute for correct valuation has been brought on records as
rejecting assessee's valuation does not mean that total share premium is
automatically taxable u/s 56(2)(viib) and AO is obliged to bring on records
suitable valuation as per extant DCF method before proceeding to tax share
premium. It was further submitted that Ld CIT(A) erred in not deciding the
appeal of assessee on its merits when addition of Rs         919,632 /- u/s
56(2)(viib) of the Act was palpably incorrect because of following apparent


                                      3
errors and discrepancies i.e. Non residents were issued the shares at same
time at same premium; AO has lightly doubted and rejected the expert
opinion; Subsequently same share have been sold to Italian Co. at more
than double rate on which capital gain was offered. He further stated that
the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Chenai
A Bench decided in ITA Nos.663, 664 & 665/Chny/2019 in case of M/s
Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd decided on 14.06.2019 and placed the copy
thereof and requested to delete the addition by following the same ratio.

4.    On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities
below.

5.    I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records
especially the orders of the revenue authorities and the case law cited by Ld.
Counsel for the assessee. I find that assessee has continuously impressed on
one significant basic factual aspect to establish the correctness of share
premium obtained u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act by stating that on 01/12/2014
(during AY 2015-2016) share of Clearview Healthcare Pvt Ltd (assessee
herein) were sold to Medipass SRL Italy @ 380.53 per share (which in turn
valued shares of Clearmedi Healthcare Private Limited @ 615 per share) and
for which necessary copy of Resolution dated 20/12/2013 duly attested by
Notary public of Italy were submitted to AO during assessment itself and it
was categorically stated in reply that the said transaction has actually taken
placed at agreed rate of Rs 380.53 per share of Clearview Healthcare Pvt Ltd
(Rs 615 per share of Clearmedi Healthcare Private Limited) (refer assessee's
paper book pages 143- 144 letter dated 23.12.2016 addressed to AO in
assessment proceedings, same reply in letter to AO Dated 19.12.2016 paper
book pages 153) clearly justifies instant share premium of Rs 150 per share
and AO wrongly added Rs 16 per share as alleged excessive premium (which
amounted to Rs 919,632 in aggregate) within the meaning of provisions of
section 56(2)(viib) of the Act (explanation to section 56(2)(viib) clause (ii)
                                      4
thereof where judicious satisfaction of AO is talked about). This plea of
assessee    has considerable cogency.      The second plea is that when
ultimately shares are bought by foreign buyer on basis of detailed due
diligence which is reflected from share purchase resolution and share
purchase agreement already placed on records and money paid for share
purchase by foreign buyer is beyond shadow of doubt it cannot be said that
subsequent money which is paid by foreign buyer to share holders sellers in
India who have subscribed share at premium in subject period is not a clean
money which defense of assessee also has considerable cogency. Further,
plea of assessee that once assessee has given approved valuer (CA) report
justifying share premium raised which is based on valid and prescribed
method being DCF and said report is in accordance with ICAI norms and no
where AO has countered said report by substitute valuation from alternate
expert on basis of chosen DCF method and assessee's valuation is justified
by subsequent sale/purchase and there is no unaccounted money involved
even remotely, I find that the same is not tenable and the addition made by
AO u/s 56(2)(viib) read with rule 11UA is held to be unlawful. Further plea of
assessee that assessee does not come within mischief of stated provision as
manifest from cursory look to explanatory memorandum to Finance Act,
2012 by which stated provision was brought into the law and stated share
premium is a clean money and so is not covered within provisions of section
56(2)(viib) of the Act (legislative intent is to apply said provision where
money received is not clean and is unaccounted money received in garb of
share premium where as no where it is case of revenue that stated money is
not clean money. For the sake of convenience, I am reproducing the
legislative intent behind section 56(2)(viib) inserted by Finance Act 2012 as
under:-






              "As per memorandum explaining provisions to Finance Bill
           2012:

                                      5
   "....Share premium in excess of the fair market value to be
treated as income Section 56(2) provides for the specific
category of incomes that shall be chargeable to income-tax
under the head "Income from other sources". It is proposed
to insert a new clause in section 56(2). The new clause will
apply where a company, not being a company in which the
public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous
year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for
issue of shares. In such a case if the consideration received
for issue of shares exceeds the face value of such shares, the
aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds
the fair market value of the shares shall be chargeable to
incometax under the head "Income from other sources.
However,    this    provision   shall        not   apply   where    the
consideration for issue of shares is received by a venture
capital undertaking from a venture capital company or a
venture capital fund. Further, it is also proposed to provide
the   company      an   opportunity     to    substantiate   its   claim
regarding the fair market value. Accordingly, it is proposed
that the fair market value of the shares shall be the higher of
the value-- (i) as may be determined in accordance with the
method as may be prescribed; or (ii) as may be substantiated
by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer,
based on the value of its assets, including intangible assets,
being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks,
licences, franchises or any other business or commercial
rights of similar nature. This amendment will take effect from
1st April, 2013 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the




                          6
              assessment year 2013- 14 and subsequent assessment
              years..."

5.1   I further find that the issue in dispute is squarely    covered by the
decision of the ITAT `A' Chennai Bench decided in ITA Nos.663, 664 &
665/Chny/2019 in case of M/s Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd decided on
14.06.2019 wherein, it was held that:
           "15. Now coming to valuation of shares, as rightly submitted by
           the Ld. counsel for the assessee, there are two limbs in
           Section56(2)(viib) of the Act. As per explanation to Section
           56(2)(viib) of the Act, the first limb is valuation to be made as
           per the prescribed method. In fact, the method for valuation of
           shares is prescribed under Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules,
           1962. The second limb is the valuation of the company based on
           value on the date of issue including its assets. Assets include
           intangible assets such as goodwill, knowhow, patents,
           copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises, etc. The Assessing
           Officer has not taken into consideration the second limb in
           explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The second limb
           provides that when valuation was made by the company, if the
           Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the valuation, he has to
           call for material from the assessee how the valuation was made
           by the assessee-company. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer
           as referred in explanation to Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act would
           be judicial satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Judicial
           satisfaction means the Assessing Officer has to take into
           consideration the well established method of valuation of shares
           including the assets as explained in Explanation 2 to Section
           56(2)(viib) of the Act. It cannot be arbitrary. The Assessing
           Officer has to take note of the judicial and established principles
           in arriving at his satisfaction. In this case, the Assessing Officer
           has not found any specific fault in rejecting or not satisfying with
           the valuation made by the assessee. When the Assessing Officer
           has not foundany defect or error in the valuation of shares by
           the assessee company, it may not be necessary to apply the
           method of valuation prescribed under Rule 11UA of the I.T.
           Rules. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the valuation
           made by the Assessing Officer under Rule 11UA of the Income-
           tax Rules, 1962."




                                      7
5.2       Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by
applying the principles from the aforesaid decision and legislative intent
behind insertion of section 56(2)(viib), I hold that addition made by AO on
account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very
shares are sold in next financial year at much higher amount after proper
due diligence, that to a non resident buyer and further there is no case of
unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence,
addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act is hereby deleted.
6.        In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

          Order pronounced on 03-01-2020.

                                                                Sd/-

                                                         [H.S. SIDHU]
                                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 03-01-2020

SRB


Copy forwarded to:
     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT (A)
     5.   DR, ITAT
                                                           AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.




                                          8

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting