AJL is the publisher of the National Herald newspaper and is now 99% controlled by Young Indian where Congress President Sonia Gandhi and her two children, Rahul And Priyankamajority shareholders.
Delhi | Congress leader and former Union Minister Pawan Bansal appears in ED office for questioning in the case… https://t.co/ROvY9hWoJ5
— The Times of India (@timesofindia) 1649742035000
Young Indian CEO Kharge has been summoned again as the probe into the role of Sonia Gandhi and her two children under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) moves closer. The Gandhi family incorporated Young Indian and took over AJL sometime in 2011-12. The ED on Tuesday summoned AJL MD and Congress interim treasurer Pawan Bansal in connection with the transactions of AJL and Young Indian.
Agency sources said Kharge has been asked to produce certain documents detailing Young India’s shareholding pattern and the source of its funds, which helped it acquire AJL.
In a 2019 order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had dismissed Young Indian’s appeal against withdrawal of IT exemptions with retrospective effect. As a result of the IT action, the department demanded Rs 145 crore on Young Indian. In addition, it cleared the way for scrutiny of IT returns of shareholders of Young Indian, including Sonia Gandhi and her two children.
“The events clearly indicated that prior to the incorporation of Young Indian, the registered office was shifted to Delhi and the directors managing the affairs of the assessee company were taken on the board of AJL. Not only this, , Young Indian was permitted to use the property. AJL as its registered office,” the ITAT order had noted.
ITAT gave details of Rs 90 crore transactions between Congress and AJL and later with Young Indian. Congress had earlier lent this amount to AJL and later agreed to waive the loan when Young Indian wanted to take over the company by settling AJL’s debt of Rs 50 lakh. In return, Young Indian became the owner of assets worth Rs 400 crore, according to the IT department.
“In view of our findings, we hold that CIT-E (Commissioner IT Exemption) was justified in deregistration of the registration from assessment year 2011-12, as no activity of the assessee (Young Indian) was carried out accordingly. For its purposes nor its activities can be held to be genuine. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed,” the ITAT order observed.
The appellate tribunal held that the sole activity of the assessee was to borrow Rs 1 crore from a Kolkata based company and pay Rs 50 lakh to Congress and apply for allotment of shares against cancellation of the loan. “All these activities certainly cannot be attributed to furthering the objectives of Young Indian, as at no point of time, was it ever stated that the reason behind acquiring AJL and paying Rs 50 lakh to AICC What was the aim and objective,” ITAT said.
“It is, according to the respondent, if the transfer is seen in the background of the purpose of the lease and the modalities adopted are an instrument to transfer the property held on le-se from the Government by AJL, Young Indian, which becomes Has been 99% or rather 100% shareholders of AJL,” said ITAT, justifying the action of the IT department.