S. 2(22)(e) not applies to amount advanced for investment on behalf of company

PrintPDF

ITAT DELHI BENCH “A^”

BEFORE SHRI SHAMIMYAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND

SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 4269/Del/2011 – A.Y. : 2008-09

Income Tax Officer vs. Adarsh Kapoor

 

the stand of the assessee has been that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- was given to the assessee company, consequent upon the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the said Company authorizing the assessee to invest on behalf of the company in units of M/s Reliance Equity Advantage Funds. This was due to the reasons that at that point of time the company did not meet the requirements of the Know Your Customer (KYC) Scheme (for Money Laundering Measures) and also did not have a PAN Card which was mandatory for the purpose of applying of units of Mutual Funds.

We find that in this case the assessee is a Director of M/s Nevco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. holding 99% share of the total paid up capital. Assessee has made investment to the tune of Rs. 12,00,000/- in Reliance Equity Fund on behalf of Nevco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. The proposal for the assessee to make investment on behalf of Nevco Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the said company. The reasons for the Company not being able to make the investment in its name was that at that point of time, the Company did not meet the requirement of Know Your Customer (KYC) Scheme (for Money Laundering measures) and also did not have a PAN card which were mandatory for the purpose of applying of units of mutual funds. The Assessing Officer’s has given the reasoning for not accepting these submissions on the ground that Company could have waited to complete the formalities before the making the investment. We find that this view of the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. It was on account of commercial expediency as to avail the business opportunity, the Company invested in the Reliance Equity Funds through the assessee. The amount investment was duly reflected in the books of accounts of the Company as an investment. Assessee did not derive any benefit for the said investment in his personal name. It has further been submitted that the said investment was redeemed on 10.12.2010 at a profit of Rs. 1,35,838.21. On 10.12.2010 on the same date there was a transfer of redemption money of Rs. 13,35,838.21 from the assessee’s bank account to the Company’s bank account. Thus, we find that it was for proper and cogent reasons due to which the investment was made in the name of assessee on behalf of the Company. The assessee did not derive any benefit out of the same. The profit derived on the investment was immediately transferred to the assessee company on redemption. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Hence, accordingly, we uphold the same.