9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred by ignoring the valuation certificate issued by an independent Chartered Accountant for the fair value of the shares as per the Rule 11UA of the Rules. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in stating that capital introduction by the Multi Sector Seed Fund is prior to effective date of CBDT circular No. 52/2012 dated 29/11/2012 whereas the capital introduction made by the Multi Sector Seed Fund is on 21 May 2014. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in the fact that the 'Multi Sector Seed Fund' is SEBI registered venture capital fund vide registration number IN/VCF/10-11/0201 dated 07 January 2011 and the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable in the instant case. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating that valuation certificate issued by an independent Chartered Accountant does not give an independent opinion but has merely prepared the report based on the figures provided by the Appellant's Management, which obviously would be subjective and self-serving in nature." 2. Assessee has also raised following additional ground vide application dated 14/10/2020: "7. The Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention: * PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC); * PCIT vs. BMA Capfin Ltd., reported in (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 330 (SC); * Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2020) 118 Taxmann.com 40 (Del-Trib); * Satyam Computer Services Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 593 (Mum-Trib); 6.2. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR objected for the issue alleged in additional ground. She admitted that intimation was filed by assessee on 21/07/2017 while replying to the list of fixed assets held by assessee as on date. She submitted that, notice under section 143 (2) was issued to M/s. Serendipity Infolabs Pvt. Ltd., on 21/03/2016 and assessee started making submissions before Ld. AO vide its letter dated 01/12/2017, 15/12/2017, 19/12/2017 and 21/12/2017. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that, the merger was approved by NCLT on 28/07/2017 which was intimated to assessee by Ministry of corporate affairs on 31/07/2017. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that, assessee did not file independent letter, immediately informing Ld.AO regarding approval of merger and that M/s. Serendipity Infolabs Pvt. Ltd., is no longer in existence. She submitted that, assessee had already filed details of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., and ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed scheme of composite arrangement of merger under provisions of section 233 of Companies Act, before Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal. Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, approved the scheme of merger on 28/07/2017 w.e.f. 31/03/2015. Assessee strongly relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of DCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in (2019) for 16 ITR 613 and challenged validity of assessment order dated 26/12/2017, as it is passed in the name of transferor company. 7.2. For the sake of convenience we tabulate relevant facts observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) for comparing with facts of assessee before us. Facts in case of Maruti Suzuki(supra) before Hon'ble Supreme Court Facts in case of assessee before us. Assessment year involved is 2012-13, relevant financial year 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012 Assessment year involved is 2015-16, relevant financial year; 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015. Amalgamation was approved on 29/01/2013 w.e.f. 01/04/2012 Merger was approved on 28/07/2017 w.e.f. 31/03/2015 Notice under section 143(2) was issued on 26/09/2013 Notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory dues amounting to Rs. 18,62,000/- * disallowance of amortisation of intangible assets under section 35D amounting to Rs. 59,46,000/- * revaluation of share premium under section 56(2)(viib) amounting to Rs. 62,16,077/- 8.1. Aggrieved by additions, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) deleted disallowance of bad debts. Ld.CIT(A) on considering submissions by assessee directed Ld.AO to verify if assessee has actually suo moto disallowed sum of Rs. 15,68,759/- in its computation being interest payment and also directed Ld.AO to verify if assessee had disallowed a sum of Rs. 59,46,000/- towards depreciation on software under section 35D. 8.2. In respect of addition made under section 56(2)(viiib) of the Act Ld.CIT(A) agreed with Ld.AO and observed that the report prepared by the chartered accountant is based on information given by the management which is a self-serving document which cannot be relied on. 8.3. Before us, assessee is in appeal only in respect of addition amounting to Rs. 62,16,077/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 8.4. It is submitted by Ld.AR that assessee is a venture capital Undertaking receiving monies from other Venture Capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
