9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 474 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - addition u/s 68 towards share capital and share application money - Held that - We hold that the order passed by the AO by adding a sum of ₹ 2.79 crores towards share capital cannot be termed as one which is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue warranting revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. Notional loss representing changes in inventories of shares and securities - Held that - We hold that the order passed by the AO by allowing the changes in inventories of finished goods, WIP and stock in trade as deduction and the same cannot be treated as MTM loss or notional loss and hence cannot be termed as erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, warranting revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid findings with regard to both the issues of share capital and MTM losses, we hold that the revision order passed by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Accordingly , the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Genuineness of share application money and application of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Valuation of closing stock and alleged notional loss. Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction based on mere possibilities and guesswork, aiming to impose his own views on the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT believed the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, but the tribunal found that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and that the CIT's jurisdiction was not warranted. 2. Genuineness of Share Application Money and Application of Section 68: The CIT alleged that the AO failed to apply the provisions of Section 68 regarding the share application money, which was considered non-genuine due to the lack of genuine business activity and doubtful sources of funds. The assessee, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), had allotted 1,457,400 equity shares at a premium, raising share capital and share premium. The CIT argued that the AO did not make proper inquiries or verification, but the tribunal found that the AO had indeed conducted thorough inquiries, including issuing summons under Section 131 and verifying bank statements. The tribunal concluded that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants were established, and the AO's addition of ?2.79 crores towards share capital was excessive and prejudicial to the assessee, not the revenue. 3. Valuation of Closing Stock and Alleged Notional Loss: The CIT also raised an issue regarding the valuation of closing stock, alleging a notional loss of ?7,30,608 due to the difference between the book value and the value shown in the profit and loss account. The CIT believed this notional loss should be added back to the assessee's total income. However, the tribunal found that the assessee had valued its closing stock in accordance with Accounting Standard 2 (AS-2), which is notified by the Income Tax Department. The differential figure was not a notional loss but a result of valuing the closing stock at the lower of cost or net realizable value. The tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries and correctly concluded that no disallowance was warranted. The CIT's assumption of MTM loss was factually incorrect, and the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Conclusion: The tribunal quashed the revisionary order passed by the CIT under Section 263, holding that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
|
