By Pooja Punjabi Oberai | Pramod S. Prabhudesai
Chartered Accountants
6. Mahesh Sureka vs. Marathe Hospitality [2020] 116 taxmann.com 552 (NCLT-Mum.) C.P.(IB) No. 3603/(MB)/2018 Date of order: 20th March, 2020
Section 238 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Assets attached by EOW were to be released in favour of
RP as non-obstante clause appearing in the later legislation would
precede the former – Transfer of assets to a partnership firm (where one of the
partners was a tax adviser of the corporate debtor) for an inadequate
consideration without prior consent of the mortgagee was a fraudulent
transaction and was set aside
FACTS
Insolvency
proceedings were admitted against the corporate debtor P Co on 14th
March, 2018 on an application filed by U Bank (the ‘Financial Creditor’). One
of the properties of the corporate debtor was financed by way of mortgage by U
Bank. The corporate debtor had leased the said property to MH (a partnership
firm) on a long-term basis for a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month vide lease
deed dated 18th May, 2016. Mr. AN, who was a partner in MH, was also
a tax adviser to the corporate debtor. Further, the said property was leased to
MH without obtaining the prior approval of U Bank.
The Resolution Professional (RP) learned
that one of the directors of the corporate debtor was in jail (in judicial
custody) and that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) had attached several of the
properties of the corporate debtor which included its registered office. The RP
mentioned that due to the attachment of the registered office of the corporate
debtor and unavailability of the Directors and other staff members, it was
impossible to prepare essential details of the assets and liabilities of the
corporate debtor. The property mentioned above was also attached by the EOW.
Mr. AN contended that although it was the
duty of the corporate debtor before giving the said property on lease to seek
prior permission of U Bank, MH could not be prejudiced for the wrong-doings of
the corporate debtor. Further, as per section 46 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) the relevant time for avoidance of undervalued
transaction was one year prior to commencement of the Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) of the corporate debtor. It was pleaded that since
the said lease agreement was entered into on 18th May, 2016, and
hence was beyond the one-year period from the CIRP commencement date, it could
not be covered u/s 46 of the Code.
HELD
The Tribunal heard both the parties at
length. It observed that the lease rental for a period of ten years was a
paltry sum of Rs. 25,000 per month payable by the 10th of the subsequent month
and that the lease could be renewed for a further period by the lessee as per
the said agreement. The fact that Mr. AN was a partner in MH and a tax adviser
to the corporate debtor indicated that it was a case of preferred transaction.
The fact that there was no provision for an annual increment and the extension
was only at the prerogative of the lessee, leads to the conclusion that the
transaction was a fraudulent one.
The Tribunal
relied on the provisions of section 65A(2)(c) of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 which provided that no lease shall contain a covenant for ‘renewal’. It
was observed that the lease agreement of the corporate debtor with a related
party MH provided for a total rent of a sum of Rs. 25,000 per month in respect
of huge commercial property measuring about 2,310 sq. metres along with a
two-storey building structure with no increase in rental for a period of ten
years. In addition, as per the lease agreement, there was a provision for
further extension at the will of the lessee. In view of this, the lease
agreement entered into between the corporate debtor and MH was held to be
illegal as per the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Besides, the mortgage deed signed by the
corporate debtor with U Bank provided that the corporate debtor could not let
or license its interest in the said property, or part with its possession,
unless it obtained the written consent of U Bank. Since the said consent was
not obtained, the Tribunal held that the transaction of lease was invalid and mala
fide.
The NCLT observed that the attachment of the
assets of the corporate debtor by the EOW would hamper the claim of the
creditors of the corporate debtor. Thus, to protect the interest of the bank
and the present creditors, NCLT directed the EOW and other Government
Departments to release the property and assets of the corporate debtor
currently attached with them so that the CIRP of the corporate debtor could be
conducted in the substantial public interest.
In the context of section 238 of the Code
which has a non-obstante clause, the Tribunal relied on the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Solidaire India Ltd. vs. Fairgrowth
Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that where two statutes
contain the non-obstante clause, the latest statute would prevail.
Thus, the lease agreement was held as null
and void and the attachment of assets by the EOW was directed to be released in
favour of the RP for carrying out the CIRP in the best interest of the
creditors of the corporate debtor.
7. American Road Technology & Solutions
(P) Ltd. vs. Central Government, Hyderabad [2020] 115 taxmann.com 16 (NCL-Beng.) Date of order: 31st December,
2019
Where company filed application for
revision of financial statements in F.Y. 2017-18, three preceding years for
purpose of revision of financial statements would be 2016-17, 2015-16 and
2014-15 (which was one of the years in which incorrect financial reporting had
been detected and in respect of which approval for revision had been sought),
since a true and fair picture of company’s finances would not emerge for F.Y.
2014-15 unless financial statements for 2012-13 and 2013-14 were also revised –
Application for revision of financial statements for years 2012 to 2015 was to
be allowed
FACTS
Company A Pvt. Ltd., the applicant, was
incorporated in the year 2012 under the Companies Act, 1956 with the Registrar
of Companies, Karnataka at Bangalore. Its business was mainly carried out in
Bangalore.
During the year 2014-15, the majority
shareholder was informed by one of the ex-senior employees that the affairs of
A Pvt. Ltd. are not run as per the provisions of the Companies Act and the
applicable rules and regulations, and further that there were several financial
irregularities and even falsification of accounts has taken place.
The majority shareholder and A Pvt. Ltd.
decided to appoint an independent auditor to conduct a forensic audit of the
company. The independent auditor submitted his investigation report. This
report was examined internally and expert views were also taken in consultation
with the independent auditor and the statutory auditor.
The statutory auditors had opined that A
Pvt. Ltd.’s records need improvement to ensure controls which are not
commensurate with the size of the company and the nature of its business, with
regard to execution of contracts and raising invoices.
The findings of
the statutory auditor were incorporated in the annual returns filed for the
financial year 2014-15 and it was noted that suspicious transactions have taken
place and falsification of accounts has been done. It was noted that the annual
returns and balance sheets for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were
filed without even reconciling the bank statements with the actual activities
of the company that have taken place during the relevant period.
After consideration of the independent
auditor’s report, the management had lodged various criminal proceedings. The
statutory auditor has advised A Pvt. Ltd. to move u/s 131 of the Companies Act,
2013 for the accounts to be redrafted for the period and recasting of the books
for the periods 2015-16 and 2016-17 to incorporate the changes in the opening
balances, subject to ratification by members in a general meeting. Accordingly,
the present petition was filed before the Tribunal.
Based on above factual matrix, the Tribunal
ordered notices to be issued to the respondents, namely, the Registrar of
Companies, the Regional Director, the Income Tax Officer concerned and the
auditor of the company.
The regional director (RD) submitted that
the company has filed the application u/s 131 of the Companies Act, 2013 for
revision of financial statement and board reports for the Financial Years
2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The RD raised an interesting issue that the application is not made for revision of any of
the three immediately preceding financial years but for all the earlier
years. Hence the same does not fall under the provisions of section 131
of the Act and that, too, for revision of financial statements to reflect
suspicious transactions and falsification of accounts that had taken place in
the company.
As per the Regional Director, u/s 131(2) of
Companies Act, 2013 the revisions must be confined to – (a) The correction in
respect of which the previous financial statement or report do not comply with
the provisions of section 129 or section 134; and (b) The making of any necessary
consequential alteration. He further stated that the petitioner company has
sought blanket revision of financial statements for the years 2012-13, 2013-14
and 2014-15 without actually specifying or limiting itself to any particular
entry or disclosure. Hence the petition is not maintainable. Further, the RD
reiterated that it appears that the revision of financial statements based on
alleged fraud will not fall within the ambit of section 134 of the Companies
Act, 2013.
HELD
The Tribunal, after considering the
objections raised by the RD, observed as under:
(i) The petition seeks approval for
voluntary revision of financial statements and board reports for the financial
years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.
(ii) It is the contention of A Pvt. Ltd. that
this provision permits it to voluntarily revise its accounts for any three
preceding financial years, whereas the other respondents in these proceedings
have opposed this view and stated that the same is permitted only for any of
the three immediately preceding financial years and not beyond.
Section 131 of the Act reads as under:
Voluntary Revision of Financial
Statements or Board’s Report:
(1) If it appears to the directors of a
company that –
(a) the financial statement of the
company; or
(b) the report of the Board
do not comply with the provisions of
section 129 or section 134 they may prepare revised financial statement or a
revised report in respect of any of the
three preceding financial years after obtaining approval of the
Tribunal on an application made by the company in such form and manner as may
be prescribed and a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal shall be filed
with the Registrar…:’ (emphasis added).
The Tribunal observed that the petition is
filed on 22nd January, 2018 and falls within the F.Y. 2017-18.
Section 131, even going by the contention of the respondent that the words ‘in
respect of any of the three preceding financial years’ should mean
‘immediately’ preceding three financial years, then such preceding three
financial years would be 2016-17, 2015-16 and 2014-15. Thus, F.Y. 2014-15,
which is one of the years in which the incorrect financial reporting has been
detected and in respect of which approval for revision has been sought, is
squarely covered by section 131.
The Tribunal
further observed that when a balance sheet is drawn for a particular year, it
brings forward balances of the preceding year/s, and as such will necessarily
impact the balance sheet for the Y.E. 31st March, 2015, i.e., for
F.Y. 2014-15, and for this reason the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 will
necessarily have to be considered for revision of the accounts that are not
giving a true and fair picture of the accounts for these years, for the reasons
mentioned herein above. This accounting compulsion cannot be ignored.
Once this is made clear, the issue whether the accounts of the three F.Y.s
referred to in the petition could be revised or not in view of an
interpretation of section 131, becomes redundant and of mere academic interest.
In section 131
the term ‘immediately preceding’ is not used. Instead, the section speaks of ‘any
of the three preceding financial years‘.
In order to
determine the intent of the Legislature, it is necessary to look into the 57th
Report of the Standing Committee on Finance on the Companies Bill, 2011. The
relevant portion of the said Report of the Standing Committee is extracted
below:
‘The change
proposes to provide procedural requirement in respect of revision in
accounts in certain cases. The present law is silent in respect of re-opening
or re-casting of accounts. In certain cases, particularly in cases relating
to fraud, there may be need to re-open / re-cast accounts to reflect true and
fair accounts. In case of Satyam, such re-casting was ordered
by the Court. The provisions in the Bill mandate such re-opening on the order
of the Court or Tribunal. In other cases the re-opening is being permitted,
through order of Tribunal, with adequate safeguards.’ (Emphasis supplied.)
The Tribunal
further observed that considering that the thrust of several provisions of the
Act is either to prevent financial misdemeanour or oppression and
mismanagement, all such provisions need to be understood and interpreted in
this light.
Since the
instant case is prima facie that of mismanagement, misreporting and
alleged fraud, the Tribunal observed that the section has to be interpreted in
the spirit of the Act and the exercise of correcting the same cannot become a
victim of interpretation of allowable time. Such time limits can at best be considered
to be advisory and not mandatory, since the same is only a procedural
requirement, as mentioned in the Standing Committee Report.
Thus, the
Tribunal observed that the words ‘in respect of any of the three preceding
financial years’ have to be read as any three previous years. It
further elaborated that even otherwise, the Tribunal is competent to initiate
reopening / revision of accounts u/s 130 in cases of the kind in hand, for
which no time limit is prescribed. It cannot be the case that if an application
is made u/s 131 where the grounds are similar to section 130, the accounts
prepared incorrectly, or when the affairs are
mismanaged, the revision of accounts would be prevented by any one view on time
limitation. Hence, in view of the totality of facts and circumstances, all
three years, i.e. F.Y.s 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, would be covered for
revision, not only because of the accounting compulsion, since F.Y. 2014-15 is
in any case covered, and the earlier years’ accounts have a bearing on the
same, but also as per the provision contained in section 131 of the Act.
The Tribunal
accordingly held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit
case for granting approval u/s 131 to prepare revised financial statements and
/ or revised reports in respect of the F.Y.s 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 in
the case of A Pvt. Ltd. and the same was accordingly granted. 
