9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) r.w.s. 147 for the assessment year 2006-07. ITA No: 5124/Mum/2011 2. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- "1 (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidence in the form of an opinion given by SSP Co. regarding the valuation of rights awarded to AMIF I Ltd. without affording an opportunity to the A.O as required by Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 before admitting such leading fresh evidence. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that SSP Co. is not a statutory body prescribed by any authority to give such reports and that the finding given by SSP Co. is not based on a metho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds were raised by the Department. The Tribunal has set aside this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The learned CIT (DR) fairly agreed that this issue stands covered by the said decision. 4. After carefully considering the orders passed by the CIT (A) as well as AO, we find that exactly similar issues had come up for consideration before the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Abhijit Rajan (Supra) wherein the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of AO to consider the matter afresh in the light of relevant material that assessee had produced before the CIT (A) and ITAT. The relevant grounds of appeals raised by the Department as well as the findings given by the Tribunal for the sake of ready reference is reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o AMIF I Ltd at Rs..27.63 and in holding that the actual value of shares allotted to assessee should be taken at Rs.38.25 per share instead of Rs..65.88 per share as held by the AO." Finding: "2.4. At the outset, learned Departmental Representative contends that the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity by the CIT(A) before admitting the additional evidence and, therefore, the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(A) or the AO. To this, learned counsel has no objection but learned counsel suggests that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so as he can consider the matter afresh in the light of entire relevant material, as the assessee is able to produce now. In view this and with the consent of the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares of GIPL to the Appellant at a price lower than the actual value of shares, which is liable to be taxed as Income under Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) also erred in concluding that the price at which shares were allotted to a third party in the same period of time would be the best indicator of the actual value of shares and not following the break up value or net asset value method. Without prejudice, the CJT(A) erred in valuing the rights attached to the shares allotted to a third party @ Rs. 27.63 per share as against the valuation of @ Rs. 38.92 per share valued by SSPA Co. in their Valuation Report, thus holding that the Appellant obtained benefit @ Rs. 38.25 per share of GIPL, to be taxed in the hands of the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
