By Jagdish D. Shah | Jagdish T. Punjabi
Chartered Accountants
11. Clearview Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(Delhi) Member: H.S. Sidhu (J.M.) ITA No. 2222/Del/2019 A.Y.: 2014-15 Date of order: 3rd January, 2020 Counsel for Assessee / Revenue: Kapil Goel /
Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 56(2)(viib) – When there was no
case of unaccounted money being brought in the garb of share premium, the
provisions not attracted
FACTS
The issue before the Tribunal was about taxability or otherwise of share
premium received on shares issued by the assessee company u/s 56(2)(viib). The
assessee was incorporated on 29th January, 2010. During the year
under appeal, the company had issued shares at premium. According to the AO,
the difference between the share premium received and the share valuation
determined under Rule 11UA amounting to Rs. 9.20 lakhs was the income of the
assessee as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viib). On appeal, the CIT(A)
confirmed the AO’s order.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee referred to the Explanatory Memorandum
to the Finance Act, 2012 and contended that the legislative intent was to apply
the said provisions only where, in the garb of share premium, money was
received which was not clean and was unaccounted. According to the assessee,
the lower authorities have applied the provisions of section 56(2)(viib)
without any finding that the money was not clean money. It was also pointed out
that in the subsequent year, on 1st December, 2014, the company’s
shares were sold by one of its shareholders to a non-resident at a price which
was higher than the price at which the shares were issued by the company. And
the said price was accepted by the tax authorities in the shareholder’s tax
assessment.
HELD
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the provisions of section
56(2)(viib) would apply only when money received was not clean and was
unaccounted money, received in the garb of share premium as mentioned in the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Act, 2012.
According to the
Tribunal, a subsequent transaction with a foreign buyer which was at a higher
amount and on the basis of detailed due diligence, also justified that the
share premium received by the assessee was not excessive and was fair.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and by applying
the principles from the decision of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Lalithaa
Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos. 663, 664 and 665/Chennai/2019
decided on 14th June, 2019) and legislative intent behind
the insertion of section 56(2)(viib), the Tribunal held that the addition made
by the AO on account of alleged excess share premium was unjustified when those
very shares were sold in the next financial year at a much higher amount after
proper due diligence to a non-resident buyer; and further there was no case of
unaccounted money being brought in in the garb of the stated share premium,
hence the addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) was deleted.
