TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of penalty for not making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) is unjustified. Rejecting that contention it was held that making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) is mandatory and that obligation is not dependant on the actual trading on the stock exchange. In view of the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of Comfort Fincap Ltd. [2015 (6) TMI 791 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI] , first contention of the appellants that the AO was not justified in imposing penalty for not making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) inspite of there being no trading on account of the Stock Exchanges being non functional, cannot be accepted. Second contention of the appellants is that they had filed suo moto consent applications b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration all mitigating factors, the AO has imposed composite penalty of ₹ 7 lac on each appellant which cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. - Decided against the appellants. - Appeal No. 426 of 2014, Appeal No. 427 of 2014, Appeal No. 428 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2015 - J. P. Devadhar, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sunil Humbre, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Bhadang, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Kumar Desai, Advocate with Mr. Tomu Francis, Advocate Per : Justice J. P. Devadhar (Oral) 1. Counsel on both sides state that since the issues raised in these appeals are covered by the decisions of this Tribunal, all these appeals may be heard and disposed of by a common decision. Counsel on both sides fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. b. Suo moto consent applications were filed by each appellant before SEBI seeking settlement of the penalty imposable on account of non disclosure under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997. Eventhough the said consent applications were rejected by SEBI the month of March 2012, in view of suo moto proposal put up by appellants, the AO is not justified in imposing exorbitant penalty of ₹ 7 lac on each appellant. c. Having recorded specific finding in the impugned order that it is impossible to ascertain the exact monetary loss caused to the investors on account of non disclosure under Regulation 8(3) of SAST Regulations, 1997, the AO is not justified in imposing penalty of ₹ 7 lac on each appellant. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rger Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of Comfort Fincap Ltd. (Supra), first contention of the appellants that the AO was not justified in imposing penalty for not making disclosure under Regulation 8(3) inspite of there being no trading on account of the Stock Exchanges being non functional, cannot be accepted. Moreover, the AO has recorded specific finding in all three cases, that the appellants had contended that there were no trading in shares at Delhi Stock Exchange from July 2003. It is not the case of the appellants, that the said finding is erroneous. In any event, whether the trading had taken place or not once it is accepted that there is violation of Regulation of 8(3), then the appellants cannot escape penal liability. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulations framed by the SEBI have to be complied with, irrespective of the fact that the investors have actually suffered on account of non disclosures or not. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Tribunal, above argument of the appellants cannot be sustained. 9. Argument of the appellants that penalty of ₹ 7 lac on each appellant is excessive and unreasonable is also without any merit. As noted earlier, the appellants have failed to make yearly disclosures under Regulation 8(3) from 1998 to 2011. Penalty under Section 15A(b) for non compliance of the regulation framed by SEBI is ₹ 1 lac for each day during which such failure continues or ₹ 1 crore whichever is less. Admittedly, till date the appellants have not ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
