2025 (3) TMI 605 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 56 (2) (viib) towards share premium collected from closely held company - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - As correctly decided by ITAT we notice that the lower authorities have rejected the DCF method of valuation on the ground that the same is not based on any scientific method and that since the assessee is making a loss there is no possibility of valuing the shares of the assessee at a premium. Lower authorities have not gone into the details used by the assessee under DCF method to arrive at the valuation and rejected the entire methodology as adopted by the assessee We are unable appreciatr reasons as quoted by the AO for not considering the valuation report is that the Director during the survey proceedings has stated that there is no valuation report as this reason for rejection as the satisfaction to be recorded by the AO should not be objective satisfaction exercised at his discretion but a subjective satisfaction based on the facts of the case. The lower authorities have not examined the basis on which the valuation is done and from the perusal of facts no details in this regard have been called for by the lower authorities. The valuation report is rejected based on the objective satisfaction and not based on detailed examination. As following the decision of Town Essential Private Limited Ltd. 2021 (7) TMI 17 - ITAT BANGALORE we hold that the valuation done by the assessee cannot be rejected without recording any finding to the contrary by the lower authorities and therefore we delete the addition made in this regard - Decided in favour of assessee.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Court considered the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 33,71,77,500 towards share premium collected from a closely held company, which was alleged to be contrary to the intention behind the provision to tax unaccounted income brought into books through unwarranted or unjustified share premium.

2. Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse in nature by deleting the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) pertaining to share premium collected when the assessee was incurring huge losses and there was no justification provided for the high share value, ignoring findings in the assessment order that a common director had stated during a survey that no valuation report was obtained for determining the share value.

3. Whether the Tribunal's order was perverse in setting aside the disallowance made in share premium by erroneously holding that the valuation report using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method was valid, without appreciating the lack of basis for projections under the DCF method and ignoring the reasons assigned by the assessing authority and CIT(A).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Legal Framework and Precedents: The core legal framework revolves around Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which addresses the taxation of share premium amounts considered excessive or unjustified, especially in closely held companies. The provision aims to curb the practice of introducing unaccounted income into books under the guise of share premium.

2. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the Tribunal had construed Section 56(2)(viib) by focusing on the fair market value of the shares rather than the premium amount. The Tribunal accepted the valuation report submitted by the assessee, which was prepared using the DCF method, a method recognized under Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules.

3. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided a valuation report from a Chartered Accountant using the DCF method. The lower authorities had rejected this method, arguing it was not scientific and that the company was incurring losses, making a premium valuation unjustifiable. However, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not examine the details of the DCF method or the basis for the valuation, leading to an objective rather than a subjective satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.

4. Application of Law to Facts: The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that the valuation report could not be dismissed without a detailed examination and without recording a contrary finding. The Tribunal emphasized that the rejection of the valuation was based on objective satisfaction, not a detailed analysis, which was insufficient under the law.

5. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the share premium was unjustified due to the company's financial losses and lack of a valuation report. In contrast, the Assessee argued that the valuation was conducted per statutory methods and was substantiated by a Joint Development Agreement (JDA). The Tribunal sided with the Assessee, noting the lack of a detailed examination by the lower authorities.

6. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the valuation conducted by the Assessee could not be rejected without a contrary finding from the lower authorities. Consequently, the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

1. Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal stated, "The lower authorities have not examined the basis on which the valuation is done... The valuation report is rejected based on the objective satisfaction and not based on detailed examination."

2. Core Principles Established: The decision reinforced the principle that valuation reports, especially when prepared using recognized methods, cannot be dismissed without detailed examination and a contrary finding. The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer must be subjective and based on the case's facts, not merely objective.

3. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were answered against them and in favor of the Assessee. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

← Previous Next →