Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Scrutiny related issues.

1.1 The scrutiny of returns had been a regular measure to check tax evasion since long. The collection of information for the purpose of making enquiries in the course of such scrutiny assessments is as much important as the assessment proceedings itself. There are various provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of collecting information directly from the assessees as also from the others for the purposes of making such enquiries at various stages of assessment proceedings. The findings of such enquiries are utilized for the purposes of completing the assessment proceedings in the case of a particular assessee.

1.2 In recent years, the manner of collecting information for the purpose of making an enquiry prior to the commencement as also during the assessment proceedings has undergone a paradigm shift. Now the legislature is empowering the Department with various provisions so as to enable it to collect information, which are neither specific to a particular assessee nor have any direct link to a particular income at the initial stage. In the past, the Courts have taken unanimous views that there must be an application of mind to theinformation collected and its relevance in assessment of income of an assessee.

1.3 Recently, for the purposes of widening the tax base and utilization of relevant information for the proper assessment of income, a new provision of section 285BA has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1-4-2004, which was later on substituted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1-4-2005. Theseprovisions regarding furnishing of various categories of information in respect of specified financial transactions have been referred to as "Annual Information Return" commonly known as AIR. The application of information collected from the huge pool of information, in case of a particular assessee, has been a daunting task, and has thrown open various issues and practical problems, which are the subject matter of discussion in the present paper.

Scrutiny Assessment

2. In common parlance, the 'scrutiny assessment' refers to an assessment made under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Though theprovisions of CHAPTER XIV: PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT, from sections 139 to 158, are not subject matter of discussion in this paper, it is pertinent to discuss some of the provisions relating to scrutiny assessments, enquiries before assessment, and collection of information for this purpose. These provisions relating to assessment are contained more specifically in various clauses and sub-sections of sections 143 and 144 and with reference to reassessment in section 148 read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The salient features of theseprovisions are being discussed, in brief, as under:-

(1) Section 143: Assessment

This section consists of five sub-sections and lays the procedure for initiation and completion of assessment proceedings. The provisions are being summarised as under: -

(a) Sub-sections (1), (1A), (1B), (1C)

While sub-section (1) of section 143 refers to the processing of returns furnished under section 139 or in response to notice under section 142(1) and the manner thereof sub-sections (1A), (1B) and (1C) provides for making of scheme for thepurposes of sub-section (1), i.e. processing, by the Board and the formalities in this respect.

(b) Sub-section (2)

Sub-section (2) provides for the issue of notice under certain circumstances, in cases, where the return has been furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142. Clause (i) of sub-section (2) related to 'limited scrutiny' and provides that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice, where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction and allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, and requires the assessee to produce the relevant evidences or particulars specified therein. This provision has since been discontinued and no such notice can be served on the assessee since 1st day of June, 2003.

Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) provides that Assessing Officer shall serve notice on the assessee either to attend his office or to produce or cause to be produced any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return, if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the taxes in any manner. The Proviso to clause (ii) further provides that no notice shall be served after the expiry of six months from the end of thefinancial year, in which return has been furnished. It may be noted that impetus of this limitation provision is on the 'service' of notice and 'issue' of notice has no relevance.

(c) Sub-section (3)

Sub-section (3) provides for making of assessment and determination of total income and the tax liability after hearing the relevant evidences and other particulars. While clause (i) provides for making theassessment in the case of 'limited scrutiny', clause (ii) provides for passing an order in writing, making assessment of total income and determining the sum payable by the assessee. The first proviso of this clause provides that in the case specified association or institution, which are required to furnish return of income under sub-section (4C) of section 139, no order making anassessment shall be made by the Assessing Officer without giving effect to provisions of section 10 unless the Assessing Officer has intimated the Central Government or the prescribed authority about any contravention made and the approval so granted have been withdrawn or rescinded. The second proviso further provides for giving reasonable opportunity to show-cause against the proposed withdrawal of notification or approval in case the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the activities of such institution are not in accordance with any of the conditions subject to which such approval has been granted.

(d) Sub-section (4)

Sub-section (4) provides for the credit of prepaid taxes or the sum payable by the assessee in accordance with the regular assessment made under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

(2) Section 144: Best Judgment Assessment

This provision deals with the situation where the assessee fails to furnish returns under section 139 or fails to comply with the notice and direction issued under sub-section (1) or (2A) of section 142, or fails to comply with the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 and provides that under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer shall make assessment of the total income to the best of his judgment after taking into account the material, which he has gathered. It further provides for giving an opportunity of being heard for the assessee before making the assessment to the best of his judgment. The first proviso again provides for giving such opportunity and manner of such opportunity.

(3) Section 148: Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment

This section provides that the Assessing Officer shall serve on an assessee a notice before making the assessment, reassessment, or recomputation under section 147, where he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. This further provides that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reason for doing so.

Enquiry before assessment

3. The provisions regarding enquiry before assessment have been enshrined in sections 142 and 142A, which are summarised as under: -

(1) Section 142: Enquiry before assessment

This section consists of four sub-sections dealing with the enquiries to be made before assessment and various sub-sections are discussed as under:–

(a) Sub-section (1)

Sub-section (1) provides that for the purpose of making an assessment under this Act, the Assessing Officer may serve on any person, who has made a return, or in whose case, the time allowed for filing of return under sub-section (1) of section 139 has expired, a notice requiring him.

(i) where such person has not made a return within the time allowed under section 139(1) or before the end of the relevant assessment year to furnish a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, or

(ii) to produce or cause to be produced such account or documents as the Assessing Officer may require or

(iii) to furnish in writing and verified in prescribed manner, the information in such form and on such point or matters as the Assessing Officer may require including a statement of assets and liabilities.

The opening sentence of this provision, "for the purpose of making an assessment under this Act," makes it clear that there must be an assessment proceeding pending before the Assessing Officer. Further the enquiry has to be made specifically from the assessee as is evident from the word "any person who has made the return". These conditions are the essence of these provisions. The proviso of sub-section (1) further provides that the total wealth statement shall be obtained only after the previous approval of the Joint Commissioner and that the Assessing Officer shall not require for the production of the books of account relating to a period of more that three years prior to the relevant previous year.

(b) Sub-section (2)

Sub-section (2) empowers the Assessing Officer to "make such enquiries as he considers necessary" for the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of income or loss of any person. Thus, while the Assessing Officer has been empowered to make any enquiry as he considers necessary from any person, the exercise of powers are assessee-specific and are for the purpose of assessment.

(c) Sub-section (2A)

Sub-section (2A) empowers the Assessing Officer to direct the assessee to get accounts audited and furnish a report of such audit in prescribed form, if he is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so looking to the nature and complexity of the accounts. This power, however, has to be exercised with the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the assessee should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard before issuing such direction. The opening word "if at any stage of the proceedings before him" ensures that there should be a pendency of proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the word "having regard to the nature and complexity of the account of the assessee" ensures that these provisions are also assessee- specific.

(d) Sub-sections (2B), (2C) and (2D)

Sub-sections (2B), (2C) and (2D) provides that powers under sub-section (2A) can be exercised irrespective of the fact that accounts of the assessee have been audited under any other law, the report has to be furnished within specified time and that the expenses in this respect shall be determined by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and shall be paid by the assessee.

(e) Sub-section (3)

Sub-section (3) only gives statutory recognition to the well-established principle of natural justice, whether or not specifically provided in the Statute. This principle was enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwary Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1954) 26 ITR 775 under the provisions of 1922 Act, wherein there were no such specific provisions. This provision specifically provides that except where the assessment has been made under section 144, the assessee shall be given an opportunity of being heard in respect of any information or material gathered on the basis of enquiry under sub-section (2) or (2A) and is proposed to utilise for the purpose of assessment.

In the context of the orders made under section 144, there are specific provisions for similar opportunity of hearing as inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1988. Even before this amendment, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held that this principle is fully applicable in the case where the assessment is to be made under section 144. The Head note of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of T.C.N. Menon vs. ITO reported in (1974) 96 ITR 148 is reproduced as under:-

"The question was whether, before making a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was not necessary that the assessee should be given under sub-section (3) of section 142 an opportunity of being heard in respect of any material gathered on the basis of any enquiry under sub-section (2) and proposed to be utilized for the purpose of the assessment, as contended for by the revenue.

Held that what section 144 requires the Income Tax Officer to do in the case of a defaulting assessee is to make an assessment of his total income to the best of his judgment, after taking into account all relevant material which the Income tax Officer has gathered. An assessment to the best of judgment is a quasi judicial process and it has to be based on the materials gathered. Any quasi judicial process requires an opportunity for being heard before decision. The decision can be arrived at best, or as correctly as possible, only if the assessee is given an opportunity to say why, on the materials gathered by the Income tax Officer, the income should not be assessed in the manner proposed to be done by him There is no express denial of this well-established common law right in section 142(3) of the Act. Section 142(3) deals with a stage before the Income tax Officer comes to a tentative decision or proposal to determine the total income at a certain amount on the basis of the materials gathered by him. The assessee is entitled to show cause why, on the materials gathered by the Income Tax Officer, his total income should be assessed in the manner proposed by the Income-tax Officer. Section 69 of the Act also supports this view. A best judgment assessment without such an opportunity being given is invalid."

Other provisions for collecting information

4. There are various provisions under the Act, which empowers the Assessing Officer to collect information for the purpose of this Act even prior to insertion of section 285BA regarding 'Annual Information Return'. These powers are enshrined in section 131, 132, 133, 133A, 133B, 134 and 135. A careful study of each provision and the judicial pronouncements pertaining thereto clearly reveals that the information gathered or the findings arrived at by the exercise of the powers envisaged in these provisions can be relevant for the purpose of assessment only when the two conditions are prima facie satisfied. The first condition is regarding 'pendency of assessment proceedings' and the second is that 'it is in respect of a particular assessee' or in other words it is 'assessee specific'. These provisions vis-à-vis the aforesaid two conditions are summarized as under:-

Sl. No.

Sections

Authorities & powers given in the provisions

Whether assessee specific

Pendency of Proceeding required or not

Relevancy for purpose of Act/ assessment

1

131(1)

The Assessing Officer and the Appellate  Authorities have powers of –
(a) Discovery and inspection
(b) Enforcing attendance,
(c) Compelling production of books of
account and other documents
(d) Issuing commissions

Yes

Required

Yes

2

131(1A)

The DG, DI, Jt. DI, ADI, Dy. DI & Authorized Officer referred in section 132(1) before taking any action u/s. 132

Yes

Not Required

Yes

3

132

The DG, DI, CCIT, CIT, Jt. DIT, Jt. CIT & the other authorised officer for search & seizure

Yes

Not Required

Yes

4

132A

The DG, DI, CCIT, CIT, & the other requisitioning officer for requisition of books of account etc.

Yes

Not Required

Yes

5

133(1)
to (5)

Assessing Officer & Appellate Authorities to call for information

Yes

Required

Yes

6

133(6) by higher authorities

DG, CCIT, DIT, CIT, Assessing Officer & Appellate Authorities to call for information

No

Not Required

Yes

7

133(6) by lower authorities

Assessing Officer & Appellate Authorities to call for information

Yes

Required

Yes

8

133A

Income Tax authority to enter premises & survey

Yes

Not Required

Yes

9

133B

Income Tax authority to collect certain information

Yes

Not Required

Yes

10

134

Assessing Officer & Appellate Authorities or any person authorised to inspect register of companies

No

Not Required

No

11

135

DG, DIT, CCIT, CIT, Jt. CIT has power to enquiry

No

Not Required

No

It is evident from the perusal of above provisions that for the purposes of scrutiny assessment, the two conditions relating to the pendency of assessment proceedings and the information to be assessee-specific were part of Statute even before the insertion of new provisions relating to Annual Information Return in the form of Section 285BA.

Annual Information Return (AIR)

5.1 The provisions as discussed hereinabove, which empowered the Assessing Officer to make enquiry and gather information for making the assessment or reassessment, were found insufficient by the Department. It learnt from experience to use the non-assessee-specific information in the case of an assessee and new set of provisions were introduced in the form of quoting of Permanent Account Number (PAN) being made compulsory. Sub-sections (5), (5A), (5B), (5C) and (5D) of section 139A read with Rule 114B provides for compulsory quoting of PAN in various documents and categories of transactions. But these provisions were again found insufficient and impractical for the purposes of matching the information with respect to a particular assessee.

5.2 The Task Force on Direct Taxes headed by Dr. Vijay L. Kelkar in its report under 'Chapter 10: Summary and Recommendations,' has recommended as under:-

"Collection of Information:

10.5 In view of the extant method of collection of information and constraints in digitizing the volume of information received by the tax administration, the Task Force recommends:

(i) The Income-tax Act should be amended to provide for submission of "annual information return" by third parties in respect of various transactions as may be prescribed. For this purpose, a proper format of the returns also needs to be prescribed. Consequently, the flow of information will be continuous and the discretionary power with the CIB to collect information will be eliminated.

(ii) Such annual return of information (including returns relating to tax deducted at source) should be mandatorily required to be submitted on electronic format.

(iii) Many of the Departments involved in transactions specified in rule 114B do not have any mechanism for obtaining the PAN of the concerned persons. It is, therefore, necessary that the proforma used by them for their departmental purposes, e.g. the application form for transfer of motor licence, should have the necessary column requiring the applicant to disclose his Permanent Account Number (PAN).

(iv) The Department should set up a structure for Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) with some of the major Departments and organizations involved in the transactions specified in rule 114B, such as, banks, stock exchanges, telephone companies, regional transport authority, etc. (Paragraph 3.17)"

5.3 Accordingly, provisions regarding furnishing of Annual Information Return (AIR) were inserted by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f., 1-4-2004 as Section 285BA. This is unique provision for collection of information and differs from the earlier ones, firstly for no role for the departmental officers and secondly that the information is not specific to an assessee. When section 285BA was inserted for the first time, it was applicable with respect to any 'assessee', only who enters into any financial transaction as may be prescribed, with any other person. Thus this section was applicable to an assessee only.

5.4 The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, w.e.f. 1-4-2005 completely substituted this provision with an altogether new section consisting of sub-sections (1) to (5). This made it mandatory for any person, being –

(a) an assessee; or

(b) the prescribed person in an office of government; or

(c) a local authority or other public body or association; or

(d) the Registrar or sub-Registrar as per Registration Act; or

(e) the registering authority under Motor Vehicles Act; or

(f) the Post Master General; or

(g) the Collector under Land Acquisition Act; or

(h) the Recognized Stock Exchange; or

(i) an officer of Reserve Bank of India; or

(j) a Depository under the Depository Act, 1996,

who is responsible for registering, or maintaining books of account or other document containing records or any specified financial transaction, under any law for the time being in force, to furnish Annual Information Return. Thus under the new provision apart from an assessee the other prescribed persons were also made responsible for furnishing the Annual Information Return (AIR).

5.5 The relevant rules were also made in the form of rule 114E and the return is to be filed in Form No. 61A. As per sub-rule (2) every person mentioned in Column 2 of table below in respect of all transactions of the nature and value specified in the corresponding entry in Column 3, which are registered or recorded by him during a financial year shall furnish the AIR –

Sl.No.

Class of person

Nature and value of transaction

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

A Banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies.

Cash deposits aggregating to ten lakh rupees or more in a year in any savings account of a person maintained in that bank.

2.

A banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies or any other company or institution issuing credit card.

Payments made by any person against bills raised in respect of a credit card issued to that person, aggregating to two lakh rupees or more in the year.

3.

A trustee or the manager of the Mutual Fund as may be duly authorised by the trustee in this
behalf.

Receipt from any person of an amount of two lakh rupees or more for acquiring units of that Fund.

4.

A company or institution issuing bonds or debentures.

Receipt from any person of an amount of five lakh rupees or more for acquiring bonds or debentures issued by the company or institution.

5.

A company issuing shares through a public or rights issue.

Receipt from any person of an amount of one lakh rupees or more for acquiring shares issued by the company.

6.

Registrar or Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908.

Purchase or sale by any person of immovable property valued at thirty lakh rupees or more.

7.

An officer of Reserve Bank of India duly authorized by the Reserve Bank of India in this behalf.

Receipt from any person of an amount or amounts aggregating to five lakh rupees or more in a year for bonds issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

The responsible persons will furnish the AIR to Commissioner of Income, (Central Information Branch) and it should be furnished in electronic media in prescribed Form Nos. 61A, which is in two parts, Part-A, containing the particulars and verification and Part -B, containing details of transactions.

5.6 The returns for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in Form No. ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-3 and ITR-4 provided for furnishing of details of transactions made during the financial year under Schedule AIR under various codes given as under: -

Sl.No.

Code

Nature of transactions

1.

001

Cash deposits aggregating to ten lakh rupees or more in a year in any savings account by you maintained in a banking company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applied (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act)

2.

002

Payment made by you against bills raised in respect of a credit card aggregating to two lakh rupees or more in a year.

3.

003

Payment made by you of an amount of two lakh rupees or more for purchase of units of Mutual fund.

4.

004

Payment made by you of an amount of five lakh rupees or more for acquiring bonds or debentures issued by a company or institution.

5.

005

Payment made by you of an amount of one lakh rupees or more for acquiring shares issued by a company.

6.

006

Purchase by you of any immovable property valued at thirty lakh rupees or more.

7.

007

Sale by you of any immovable property valued at thirty lakh rupees or more.

8.

008

Payment made by you of an amount of five lakh rupees or more in a year for investment in bonds issued by Reserve Bank of India.

Guidelines for Scrutiny and AIR

6.1 The information from AIR is being made the basis for the scrutiny of cases since its advent. The Action Plan for year 2008-09, which laid down the selection criteria for scrutiny of cases, has provided selection of cases for scrutiny at "NON-NETWORK stations" and "NETWORK stations", separately. As per the Action Plan, the following categories of cases shall be selected for scrutiny at "NON-NETWORK stations": -

ITR – 1

ITR – 2, ITR – 3, ITR – 4

(1) Cash deposits in Savings Bank Account of
assessee in relevant Financial Year as per AIR Information (code 001) exceed Rs. 10 lakhs

(1) Cash deposits in Savings Bank Account of assessee in relevant financial year as per AIR Information (code 001) exceed Rs. 10 lakhs

(2) Sale consideration of property sold by the assessee in relevant Financial Year as per AIR Information (code 007) exceed Rs. 30 lakhs

(2) Sale consideration of property sold by the assessee in relevant Financial Year as per AIR Information (code 007) exceed Rs. 30 lakhs.and this information is not disclosed in Schedule AIR of assessee's Return.

(3) Investment in property by the assessee during the relevant Financial Year as per AIR information (code 006) exceed Rs. 30 lakhs and also exceeds 8 times of his "Gross Total Income + Exempt Income – Total Tax Paid"

(3) Investment in property by the assessee during the relevant Financial Year as per AIR information (code 006) exceed Rs. 30 lakhs and this information is not disclosed in Schedule AIR of assessee's Return.

It is quite clear from the above criteria laid for selection of cases for scrutiny; it has been linked to certain information given in AIR and as disclosed by assessee in his return also in this respect. The criteria for selection of cases do not appear uniform and equitable. For example, while in the cases of cash deposits exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs (code 001) in Savings Account all returns, whether in ITR – 1 or ITR – 2, ITR – 3 and ITR – 4, shall be selected for scrutiny, there are different parameters for AIR information in codes 006 and 007 for ITR – 1 and others. As is evident from the above chart, in case of ITR – 1, all the cases where sale consideration of property exceeds Rs. 30 lakhs will be selected for scrutiny on the basis of information given in the return itself, in cases of ITR -2, 3 and 4, it will be selected only when this information is not disclosed in Schedule AIR of return. Similarly for 'Code 006', regarding investment in property exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs, there are different criteria for ITR – 1 on one hand and ITR – 2, 3 and 4 on the other. By implication, at "NETWORK station" the cases will be selected on the same criteria automatically.

6.2 The Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued various guidelines for the scrutiny of cases on the basis of AIR information from time to time to ensure smooth working of new system. One important guideline in this respect was issued by the Board in its Press Release dated 26-10-2006 reported in [2006] 157 Taxman 1(ST), which for the ready reference is being reproduced as under:-

"PRESS RELEASE DATED 26-10-2006

Section 285BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 –
Annual Information Returns – CBDT Guidelines to deal with grievances arising out of cases
selected for scrutiny based on Annual Information Returns

The Central Board of Direct Taxes have laid down the following guidelines for dealing with grievances arising out of cases selected for scrutiny on the basis of information contained in Annual Information Returns (AIR):-

1. All cases selected for scrutiny on the basis of information contained in AIR during a month will be displayed by the 15th of the following month.

2. Queries made on the basis of information contained in AIR will be specific and to the point.

3. It shall be mentioned in the scrutiny notice that written reply along with supporting documentary evidence will be sufficient compliance to the scrutiny notice.

4. It shall be affixed on the scrutiny notice that "Personal attendance not essential".

5. If the information and supporting evidence received in response to the scrutiny notice is sufficient, personal attendance of the taxpayer shall not be insisted upon.

6. Chief Commissioners and Commissioners shall fix a reasonable period every day to hear grievances of such taxpayers, if any, without prior appointment and display the same publicly.

7. Chief Commissioners and Commissioners may also hold open house meetings in this regard.

8. Drop Boxes shall be provided for such taxpayers who wish to file their grievance in writing.

9. Steps shall be taken to redress such written grievances expeditiously."

6.3 There are various other guidelines and instructions that have been issued by the Board and for the ready reference a few are mentioned as under:-

(1) Circular No. 07/2003 dated 5-9-2003 – Explanatory Notes on Clauses as reported in [2003] 260 ITR (ST) 128 at 179

(2) Circular No. 05/2005 dated 15-7-2005 – Explanatory Notes on Clauses as reported in [2005] 273 ITR (ST) 139

(3) Circular No. 07/2005 dated 24-8-2005 – as reported in [2005] 277 ITR (ST) 17

(4) Order F No. 153/230/2005 – TPL dated 30-9-2005 for non-levy of penalty u/s. 271 FA on delayed furnishing of AIR

(5) Frequently Asked Questions on AIR given along with Information Booklet for AIR Filers

Various issues involved

7. The new channel of collecting information in the form of Annual Information Return as provided in section 285BA of the I. T. Act, 1961, have thrown open various issues as to its relevance, legal implications and practical problems while co-relating or matching the information with a particular assessee in assessment proceeding. These issues, which are only indicative and not exhaustive, are summarized as under: -

  1. The information as per AIR is a huge pool of information, the span of which may be spread to the entire county. The information furnished by the person furnishing the AIR with his jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (CIB) may not be easily matched with the information that will be furnished in return by an assessee in altogether different jurisdiction unless there is well-oiled mechanism for matching of this information through Information Network Technology; Electronic Data interchange (EDI) and PAN.
  2. The AIR is to be furnished by 31st August next following the Financial Year in which the specified transaction is registered or recorded. At this stage it is not clear as to how the said information in AIR would be utilized for purposes of assessment. The criteria for selection of scrutiny of cases for year 2008-09 as announced by CBDT is mostly with reference to the information given in Schedule AIR of the return of assessee so far as ITR – 1 is concerned and it is based on the AIR only for ITR – 2, ITR-3 and ITR-4 with respect to information in Codes '006' and '007' regarding investment and sale of property exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs, but how it will be matched with the information in return and at what stage of assessment proceeding is not clear.
  3. It is clear from the above discussion that the department will have AIR information from two sources, one from assessee and other from the persons specified in section 285BA read with Rule 114E. To make the information useful for assessment it is necessary to match, reconcile, and cross-check the information gathered from both these sources. This may not be an easy task as the person filing AIR is supposed to furnish the information only with respect to the own records whereas the assessee will have to furnish such information with respect to all the agencies. For example, if an assessee has maintained two Savings Bank accounts with two different banks and has deposited cash of Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs.12 lakhs in each account during the financial year, while the banks will report the deposits of 15 lakhs and Rs.12 lakhs each respectively in the AIR furnished by them, the assessee with furnish the figure of Rs. 27 lakhs in Schedule AIR of return. There is no mechanism in place to match these figures and the entire process of collecting information may be useless for the purposes of assessments as it may lead to roving or fishing enquiry.
  4. The information from these two different sources may not match eachother on account of difference in perceptions and interpretation of the provisions as well. For example the AIR provisions are applicable to the banking companies to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. Accordingly, it may not apply to the banks in co-operative sector or to the unscheduled banks, and this difference in interpretation at both ends may lead to mismatch of data.
  5. Another situation may arise with respect to transactions with banks where core Banking facilities are available. For example, an assessee in Kolkata maintaining Bank account with ICICI Bank in Kolkata branch, sells goods to a party in Chennai. The said party deposits money in cash in Account of assessee in the Chennai branch of ICICI Bank. The amount though deposited in ICICI Chennai is ultimately credited in Account with Kolkata branch of ICICI. Whether this will be treated as cash deposit or a mere transfer entry by Kolkata Branch, is a debatable issue and different interpretations are possible. The possibility of mismatch cannot be ruled out in such Inter-city transactions.
  6. As per the existing scrutiny criterion the returns where the assessee has shown the cash deposit exceeding Rs.10 lakhs in any of his Savings Bank Account, the cases will be automatically selected for scrutiny, whether or not the same is reported in AIR information. This may lead to futile exercise as every deposit in Bank account may not be income assessable to tax. Moreover such criterion makes the AIR information irrelevant.
  7. This situation may be illustrated by another example where an assessee receives on his retirement the sum exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs on account of refund of his retirement benefits, P.F. and gratuity, etc. He relocates his bank account and deposits the entire sum of Rs. 25 lakhs during the financial year in cash after withdrawing the same from the old bank account. From this new bank account he makes investments in Mutual Funds, Shares, etc. All these transactions may though attract provisions of Sec. 285BA read with Rule 114E but may not result in any income chargeable to tax. The selection of such cases for scrutiny will be a futile exercise and wastage of resources.
  8. The selection of these cases for scrutiny merely on the basis of AIR may lead to a situation where though there may be spurt in scrutiny cases but that may not be productive for revenue. The very idea of selection of cases for scrutiny on the basis of certain payments and transaction without any well-oiled mechanism of matching the information from AIR and information furnished by assessee in return will be an arduous task for the department which is maintaining only limited or minimum scrutiny policy since last several years.
  9. The relevance of AIR information for assessment appears to be limited in the sense that in many cases the limitation has already expired and the Assessing Officer has to resort to the provisions of section 147/148 for making assessment on the basis of such information. It is matter of debate whether mere information of AIR, without proper and cogent material and the matching of same with the accounts of assessee, will be treated as income for the purpose of assessment. This situation is further aggravated from the fact that no documents are allowed to be furnished along with return and there is no scope in ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-3 and ITR-4 , where provisions of section 44AA are not applicable, to furnish details of balance sheet or the statement of affairs. It has seen held in a catena of judicial pronouncements that the provisions of section 147/148 cannot be resorted to on the basis of suspicion and surmises, on the basis of information that is vague and to make mere roving or fishing enquiries. The initiation of reassessment proceeding merely on the basis of AIR information cannot withstand scrutiny of the court.

10.  The cases are being selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR information from Assessment Year 2005-06 and it has been seen from experience that large number of cases that have been selected for scrutiny on the basis of AIR information are related mostly to the investment in share and Mutual funds and have resulted in a futile exercise. Though there are instructions from the Board that in such cases of scrutiny on the basis of AIR information, the assessment proceeding should be conducted in such a manner that there should be no harassment of assessee. These guidelines and instructions are being blatantly flouted by the authorities and the assessments are being made as normal scrutiny assessments. Though these instructions are binding on Income Tax Authorities but even the Appellate Authorities are not interfering in cases where the assessments are being made in violation of instructions. It has been held in various judicial pronouncements that these instructions by the board are binding on authorities, subordinate to it and this is the duty of the Court to uphold the sanctity of such instructions in the interest of transparency in administration and public policy. Some of these judicial pronouncements are being referred as under:-

– Navneet Lal Javeri vs. AAC [1965] 65 ITR 198 (SC)

– Varghese (KP) vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597(SC)

– C.C.E vs. Dhirendra Chemical Industires [2002] 254 ITR 554 (SC)

Similar anomalies may be found in respect of other transactions also, which are not being mentioned for the sake of brevity.

Conclusion and Suggestions

8. In light of the discussions made hereinbefore, it appears that the scheme of scrutiny assessment vis-à-vis the AIR information needs substantial streamlining to avoid unproductive loss of man-hours, to avoid unwanted harassment of assessees and to improve the ratio of expenditure to tax collection. To make the AIR information relevant and pertinent for the purpose of scrutiny assessment, the Department may resort to the following amongst many other options:–

  1. The adherence with the instructions issued by the Board should be ensured in its entirety and the lower authorities must abide by the same in letter and spirit.
  2. Like in the search cases, the special provisions and procedures for assessment may be laid for the scrutiny assessment in relation to the AIR information to make it expedient and disposal of cases within shortest possible timeframe.
  3. The mechanism of enquiry through simple correspondence can be properly laid just to enquire and prima facie appraisal of the source of investment and the manner in which the transaction has been reflected in the return. If the assessee is able to show the disclosure of transaction by furnishing the relevant evidences, the proceeding should be closed without resorting to the normal assessment procedures.
  4. The scheme of 'limited scrutiny' may again be reintroduced in reference to the AIR information. It is ironical that the provision related to limited scrutiny was discontinued by the Finance Act, 2003 through which the provisions relating to the AIR were inserted in form of section 285BA in the I. T. Act, 1961.
  5. The proper sorting of information and its correlation with a particular assessee should be ensured so that the information could be utilized for making assessments in the proper manner. The timely action in this respect may avoid resorting to the provisions of section 147/148 so also the unnecessary litigation. While the correlation of the information with a particular assessee will take care of the information being assessee specific, the timely utilization of information in the course of assessment will take care of pendency of assessment proceeding thereby satisfying the two primary conditions of a legally valid assessment.

 



--
Me on net :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/

Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."

Some relevant issues.

Those Assessing Officers, who does not subscribed to ITGOA group, please join the group. Send email to itgoa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Some relevant issues.The AO can relied.

After the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. delivered on 23-5-2007 and reported at (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), a large number of actions are being initiated u/s. 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and often high-pitched Income tax assessments are being made at several placesWhat is further disquieting is that the stay of recovery of tax demand is not being granted pending disposal of the appeal by the CIT (Appeal) and at least 50% of the tax demand including interest u/s. 234B, is being pressed for payment for which coercive action like attachment of bank accounts, levy of penalty u/s. 221(1) etc. are also being taken.



1. Board's Instruction No. 1914 dated 2-9-1993 for stay of demand is often relied upon to reject the stay applications and to insist on payment of at least 50% of the demand till the decision of the CIT(A). This is causing great hardship to the concerned assessees and often brings about helplessness and frustration among certain tax practitioners.

2. It is, therefore, necessary to examine what can be the possible ways of mitigating hardship and inconvenience to such tax payers and to ensurethat the assessments are opened u/s. 147/143(3) and consequential recovery of tax and interest are made only if they are justified in law.

3. The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (supra) does not, in any manner, dilute the legal requirements established since long for taking action u/s. 147 of the Act. The ITO should have "reasons to believe" and not "reasons to suspect" and there "must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the ITO and the formation of the belief that there has been escapement of income of the assessee from assessment in a particular year". The material for the formation of the belief has to be definite and relevant and not vague and fanciful. Of course, the sufficiency of the material can not be challenged for takingaction u/s. 147/148 and, therefore, to some extent, the formation of belief of the AO is within the realm of subjective satisfaction [(ITO vs. Selected Daluband Coal Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SC); Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC)].

4. The above proposition of law is well settled. In this connection, some of the important judgments are as under :-

(i) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191(SC)

(ii) S. Narayanappa & Others vs. CIT (1961) 63 ITR 219 (SC)

(iii) ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 101 ITR 434 (SC)

(iv) S.P. Agrawala & Ors vs. ITO (1988) 140 ITR 1010 (Cal)

(v) Murlidhar Bhagwan Dass & Co. vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 319 (Born)

(vi) United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del)

Ratio of Rajesh Jhaveri's case – Internal source of information

7. What was held in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd's case was that w.e.f. 1-6-1999 with the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1); the intimation u/s. 143(1) was not required to be sent. The acknowledgement of the return has to be deemed to be an intimation u/s. 143(1). Neither the acknowledgement nor the intimation u/s. 143(1) (a), where some tax becomes due on the basis of return, is not an order of assessment. As such, if the material available in the return and the accompanying documents, itself shows that some income has escaped assessment, the AO can be said to have 'reasons to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The consideration of such material for the purpose of initiating assessment proceedings u/s. 147 does not mean that there was a "change of opinion" and the principles relating to 'change of opinion' were not available to the assessee. Thus, Rajesh JhaveriStock Brokers (P) Ltd's case was essentially in the realm of the source of information or material that could constitute the reasons for the formation of the belief that any income has escaped assessment where the returns were accepted without scrutiny and consequent passing of regular assessment orders u/s. 143(3)/144 ofthe Act.

8. In such cases of accepted returns and in cases of scrutiny assessments, the status of external source of information for reopening of assessments u/s. 147 are not affected in any manner by Rajesh Jhaveri's case nor does it have any effect on the relevancy of reasons and their nexus for the formation of the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This will also be evident from the following observations of theSupreme Court on page 512 of the Report Vol. 291 :-

"In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen this assessment. It is, however, to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso.

So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding u/s. 147 and failure to take steps u/s. 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation u/s. 143(1) had been issued".

No valid reasons for issue of notice u/s. 148

9. Often it is seen that the notices u/s. 148 are issued without there being legally valid reasons to meet the requirements of section 147 of the Act. Sometimes, the reasons recorded are "to make further investigation" or "there is huge concealment of income" or

"Mr. X has stated that he used to do only hawala business" without any specific instances of such entries relating to the assessee. Such material is often vague or general and does not constitute a relevant material which could be construed as providing "direct nexus or live link" for the formation of the belief that any income of the assessee has escaped assessment.

Get reasons, file objections and seek a separate order on the validity of action u/s. 147

10.  In such cases, rather than going through the process of assessment, appeals, requests for stay of demand, recovery through coercive measures etc., it will be better and perhaps, expeditious and inexpensive option, to challenge the legality of the notice u/s. 148 before the assessment is made by the AO u/s. 147/143(3) ofthe Act. This can be achieved by requiring him to comply with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The following procedure has been laid down therein:-

"However, we clarify that when a notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the notice is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the above said five assessment years".

11.  The above judgement of the Supreme Court involves the following steps :–

(i) On receipt of the notice, the assessee should file the return

(ii) After filing the return or along with its filing, he should seek copy of the reasons recorded u/s. 147 before the issue of the notice u/s. 148.

(iii) On receipt of the reasons from the AO, the assessee should file objections to the issuance of notice u/s. 148. The objection should, inter alia, give reasons for challenging the legality of theaction taken u/s. 147 based on an analysis of the reasons vis-a-vis the legal requirements. The assessee should specifically request the Ld. AO to pass a speaking order disposing of the objections by quoting, inter alia, the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra).

12.  The object of the AO's order/separate order disposing of the objections is to enable the assessee, to file a writ petition u/s. 148 in the respective High Court, if so advised, before the assessment order is passed; challenging the legality of the said notice u/s. 148 and the assessment sought to be framed in consequence thereof. In the writ petition, inter alia, the assessee should seek stay against the AO passing the order there being no valid case for the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Act.

13.  Even in cases where assessment orders have been passed and are the subject matter of appeal before the CIT (Appeal), the assessee can approach the High Court by way of a writ challenging the validity of the notice u/s. 148 and the consequent assessment order made by the AO on the ground that the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) has not been followed and a separate speaking order disposing of the objections to the validity of the notice u/s. 148 has not been passed. The assessee will, of course, have to show that he had asked for the reasons for the issue of notice and/or after the supply of the reasons, he had raised objections or sought more information and requested for the passing of a separate reasoned order regarding the objections raised against the legality of the AO's jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Act. In that case, he could also ask for the setting aside of the assessment order u/s. 147/143(3) pending the passing of a separate order and disposing of the objections. In this connection, he can rely, apart from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., a direct authority in the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs. B.L. Meena ITO (2006) 287 ITR 337 (Del). In that case, their Lordships took a very strong view of the AO not following the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and imposed a cost of Rs. 3,500/- on the Department. They laid down the following proposition of law:-

"We are of the opinion that in view of the language of the Supreme court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, the Assessing Officer should have rejected the objection, if he thought it appropriate to do so, before passing the final order and not simultaneously.

This position was reiterated by this Court in Sita World Travels (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2005) 274 ITR 186.(Del)

We cannot appreciate how, in spite of the clear language used by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, the Assessing Officer did not comply with the requirement of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the objections touched upon the merits of the controversy and the failure of the Assessing Officer to deal with the objections before passing the assessment order was only a technical error. We are mentioning this only to reject this argument in view of the clear language of the Supreme Court. The Assessing Officer cannot try to hide behind niceties, which are not even legal.

Under the circumstances, we set aside the assessment order dated January 31, 2005 and direct the Assessing Officer to deal with the objections dated October 19, 2004, filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer should pass a speaking order.

For not following the law laid down by the Supreme Court and stressed by this Court, we impose costs upon the respondent of a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to be paid to the petitioner. The costs be paid within a period of four weeks from today".

14.  The High Court would not quash the notice

u/s. 148 but would set aside the assessment and direct the AO to pass a separate order disposing of the objections against AO's action u/s. 147/148. On receipt of such an order and before a fresh assessment is made, the assessee should challenge the legality of the notice u/s. 148 based on such a separate order. This would provide a remedy that would avoid long drawn-out appeals before CIT(A)/ITAT, and problems connected with the recovery of demand.


--
Me on net :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/

Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."

COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS ISSUE DATED 18.12.2009 Volume 152 Part 7

COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS

ISSUE DATED 18.12.2009

Volume 152 Part 7

 

 

COMPANY LAW BOARD ORDERS

 

 

<.>Trust has locus standi to file petition u/s 397/398 if its name is found in register of members or share certificate issued in its name : Vijay Kumar Bhartia Family Trust v. Ranken and Co. P. Ltd. p. 722

<.>CLB cannot entertain application for refund of excess interest paid on deposit :
K. Suresh v. Associates India Finance Services Ltd. p.725

<.>Application not maintainable where registered office of company not situated within territorial jurisdiction of Bench of CLB :
K. Suresh v. Associates India Finance Services Ltd. p. 725


ENGLISH CASES

 


<.>Where company party to illegal conduct which formed basis of its claim for damages for auditors' failure to detect fraud, the auditors could rely on the defence of ex turpi causa to debar company's claim :
Stone and Rolls Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Moore Stephens (a firm) p. 729


STATUTES AND NOTIFICATIONS

 


Circulars :
RBI Circulars

<.>Credit Information Companies (Regulation) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2008-RPCD.CO RRB. No. 32/03.05.33/2009-10, dated 20th October, 2009 :
P. 92

<.>Requirement for obtaining prior approval of RBI in cases of acquisition/transfer of control of NBFCs accepting deposits-DNBS(PD) CC. No. 160/03.10.001/2009-10, dated 17th September, 2009 :
P. 94

SBI Circulars

<.>Dealings between a client and a stock broker (trading members included)-MIRSD/SE/Cir-19/2009, dated 3rd December, 2009 :
P. 79

<.>Establishment of connectivity with both depositories NSDL and CDSL-Companies eligible for shifting from Trade for Trade Settlement (TFTS) to normal rolling settlement-SEBI/MRD/DoP/SE/Cir-17/2009, dated 30th November, 2009 :
P. 77

<.>Limitation period for filing of arbitration reference-MRD/DSA/SE/CIR-18/2009, dated 2nd December, 2009 :
P. 78

<.>Preservation of records-MRD/DoP/DEP/Cir-20/2009, dated 9th December, 2009 :
P. 84

<.>Preservation of records-MRD/DoP/SE/Cir-21/2009, dated 9th December, 2009 :
P. 85

<.>Simplified Debt Listing Agreement for Debt Securities-Amendments-SEBI/IMD/DOF-1/BOND/Cir-5/2009, dated 26th November, 2009 :
P. 86


Directions

F Non-Banking Financial Companies (Deposit Accepting) (Approval of Acquisition or Transfer of Control) Directions, 2009 :
P. 93

Guidelines

<.>Guidelines for Corporate Social Responsibility :
P. 95


Regulations

<.>Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing or Lending in Foreign Exchange) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2009 :
P. 99

<.>Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) (Amendment) Regulations, 2009 :
P. 100


NEWS-BRIEFS


<.>Expert Committee for winding up of sick companies

The Government has constituted an Expert Committee for giving recommendations for better efficiency in the conduct of liquidation and winding up proceedings of companies including sick companies in the company courts. Giving this information in the Rajya Sabha today in a written reply the Minister of Corporate Affairs, said that the Committee is mandated to suggest suitable amendments to the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, towards reducing the time frame for time consuming procedures for winding up matters. The Committee is likely to submit its report by February, 2010. The Minister also informed the House that Winding up a sick entity involves multiple regulations. [
Source : www.pib.nic.in dated December 7, 2009]

<.> Bourses to prune papers for minimum five years

To ensure assistance to enforcement agencies during company investigations, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has asked exchanges and brokers to preserve original records for a period ranging from two to five years.

The market regulator has said stock exchanges and its members are required to maintain and preserve the specified books of account and documents for as long as five years.

"The originals of such documents maintained either in physical or in electronic form or in both would be required by such enforcement agencies during trial of the case also," said SEBI.

Further, stock brokers and sub-brokers will have to preserve the specified books of account and other records for a minimum of five years.

"If a copy is taken by such enforcement agency either from physical or electronic record, then the respective original is to be maintained till the trial or investigation proceedings have concluded," said SEBI.

If such documents are maintained in electronic form, provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in this regard are to be complied with, added the note from the market regulator. [
Source : www.businessstandard.com dated December 10, 2009]

<.> SEBI extends ASBA to HNIs, corporates

Wealthy and corporate investors will soon be able to use the application supported by blocked amount or the ASBA facility-where a public issue applicant's money leaves his bank account only after the share allotment. In a circular, the market regulator SEBI said the system, which has been available only to retail investors since its introduction in May 2008, will also be accessible to these investor segments too, barring qualified institutional buyers (QIB), starting January 1.

SEBI has abolished restrictions in the existing ASBA facility, which do not allow revised bids, accept more than one bid and accept application only at the cut-off price in a public issue.

The move is part of SEBI's attempts to reduce the time between the closure of a public issue and its listing. In a recent interview the SEBI chairman had indicated the possibility of reducing this period to seven days from 20 days, currently.

"100 per cent. payment for institutions needs to be done. Two things have to be put in place before that. One, the ASBA facility should be available for institutional investors, and two, the time taken to list from the day of issue closure has to be reduced. Institutional amounts are huge, and if you keep them blocked for a considerable period of time, there will be issues," he said. [
Source : www.economictimes.com dated December 11, 2009]

<.> Voting rights sought by "fit and proper" persons in private banks

A proposal to amend the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, is under consideration of the Government. The proposed amendment, inter alia, provides for addition of a new section 12B to provide prior approval of Reserve Bank of India for acquisition of 5 per cent. or more of shares or voting rights in a banking company by any person and empowering Reserve Bank of India to impose such conditions as it deems fit in this regard in order to satisfy itself that the acquisition of shares of a banking company is by a person considered "fit and proper" and that the applicant continues to be "fit and proper" to hold the shares or voting rights. [
Source : www.pib.nic.in dated December 11, 2009]

<.>
SEBI curbs on incomplete MF documentation

In a move to make the mutual fund (MF) industry more transparent, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has asked asset management companies (AMCs) to stop paying commissions to intermediaries, including banks and other distributors, who did not keep proper documents of their clients.

The documents relate to know-your-client (KYC) and power of attorney (PoA) norms for the industry.

"All documents related to investors, including KYC, PoA, in respect of transactions or requests made through some mutual fund distributors are not available with AMCs and registrar and transfer agents. The same are to be maintained by the distributors," it said.

The regulator has also asked fund houses to set up a separate customer service, mechanism for queries and grievances of unit holders. [
Source : www.businessstandard.com dated December 12, 2009]

<.> Investors free to shift without AMCs' nod

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has asked asset management companies (AMCs) not to compel investors to get no-objection certificates (NoCs) from their existing distributors for shifting their investments.

This is a reiteration of the Association of Mutual Funds of India (AMFI) advice to AMCs to allow investors to change their distributor on the basis of a letter from them.

However, "it appears that this mandate is not being followed by the mutual fund industry," it said. "Some AMCs are insisting on the investor procuring an NoC from the existing distributor for this switch over, despite the guideline from AMFI," said SEBI. [
Source : www.businessstandard.com dated December 12, 2009]

<.> Bank-financing to prop up stake-sales in PSUs

The Finance Ministry will request the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to ease the norms for bank financing of initial public offers to ensure a good response to its proposed stake-sales in public sector companies and the simultaneous follow-on offers from many of them.

The Government may also informally ask public sector banks to bring down the margin requirements on IPO financing to 40 per cent. of the application money from 50 per cent. now, a senior Finance Ministry official said.

Share sales of public sector companies along with the auction of third generation, or 3G, spectrum will help the Government partly bridge its fiscal deficit. For Financial Year 2010, the Government has projected a fiscal deficit of 6.8 per cent. of the gross domestic product or GDP.

Many high net worth individuals use borrowed funds to apply for a large chunk of shares. In the current system of proportionate allotment, it helps them garner a larger number of shares and, thereby, boost the prospects of gains on listing. The Government is also looking at prescribing a lock-in for retail investors who are allotted shares at 5 to 10 per cent. discount. Under the current norms banks are not allowed to finance the funding of shares with a lock-in period.

However, a senior RBI official said that the RBI is yet to receive these proposals from the Government and going by the current regulations these exemptions can be granted only on a case-to-case basis.

IPO financiers, however, feel that easing financing norms for public offerings will not make a difference given the raft of large-sized offerings expected to be launched.

"The chances of multi-fold oversubscription in forthcoming IPOs and FPOs remains flimsy although the benchmark indices are close to the calendar year high", said the head of a leading Mumbai-based brokerage house. IPO financing is best suited in small, oversubscribed offers, he added. [
Source : www.economictimes.com dated December 10, 2009]

 

 



--
Me on net :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://rajkumaratthenet.blogspot.com/

Virus Warning: Although the I have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in his email, sender (I) cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."