9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct with regard to the enquiry made. As is evident from the impugned order, notices were issued to assessee and explanations were sought with regard to the issuance of shares at high premium. Inter alia, the explanation given by assessee was that the high premium was paid by Experience and Sankalp, having regard to the underlying asset that the assessee had, which was the immovable property located at Prithviraj Road. According to the respondent/assessee (as computed by the registered valuer), the worth of the said property was pegged at Rs. 17.5 Crores. In our view, having regard to the findings of fact returned by the Tribunal, it is abundantly clear that an enquiry was, indeed, made by the AO with regard to the subject shares bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.11.2021 had not been disclosed. 4. It is therefore, Mr. Rai s contention that if the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, Tribunal ] in the MA preferred by the appellant/revenue is considered, there is no delay in filing the appeal. 5. Since, in any event, we intend to take up the appeal for hearing on merits, according to us, this aspect need not detain us. The delay is condoned in view of the explanation offered by Mr. Rai. 6. The application is accordingly disposed of. ITA 739/2023 7. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 8. Via the instant appeal, challenge is laid by the appellant/revenue to the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Tribunal. 9. As noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 263 of the Act. At the heart of this order is the PCIT s view was that the AO had failed to enquire about the issuance of shares at a very high premium to a closely held company. 11.6. It was the PCIT s view that valuation, as required under Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act, had not been carried out. 11.7. The record shows that the respondent/assessee had issued 28,729 shares to two closely held companies i.e., namely Experience Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. [in short, Experience ] and Sankalp Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. [in short, Sankalp ]. The subject shares were issued on 16.12.2013. The details concerning the shares, as set forth in the PCIT s order, read as follows: Sr. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the AO had failed to examine the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, Rules ]. It is in these circumstances that PCIT, upon applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and Rule 11UA of the Rules, concluded that Rs. 3,42,50,714/- was required to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Act under the head income from the other sources . 12. The moot question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal, albeit in appeal, was whether the AO had carried out an enquiry with regard to the shares issued at a premium to Experience and Sankalp. The Tribunal, as it appears, examined the matter at great length and thereafter returned the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. (v) The valuation of the aforementioned immovable property was pegged at Rs. 17.5 Crores by the registered valuer, which was the justification for the high premium received qua the shares allotted to Experience and Sankalp. 13. Given this position, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT s view that the AO had not made an enquiry about the shares issued to Experience and Sankalp at high premium, was flawed. 14. Thus, after applying the test that power under Section 263 can only be exercised if the order of the AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the PCIT was unsustainable. 15. Mr. Rai, in support of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
