2019 (1) TMI 1701 - HC - Income Tax

High Court condones late appeal filing, dismisses without admission, upholds tribunal on share valuation.

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Kolkata Versus Microfilm Capital (P.) Ltd.

The High Court condoned a 229-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, finding sufficient cause and directing immediate ... Appeal u/s 260A - methods of accounting valuation of sharers - HELD THAT:- This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have carefully tried to scrutinize the submissions made by Mr. Kundalia, learned Counsel for the revenue and Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel for the assessee. If this was a first appeal, we would have without any hesitation admitted it on all the questions of law and facts proposed to be raised by Mr. Kundalia. But the principles of law for admission and hearing of an appeal under Section 260A are very defined and limited. The views canvassed by Mr. Kundalia would at best be described as plausible views on methods of accounting valuation of sharers. But we do accept the finding of the tribunal that 'the valuer in our considered view has followed an accepted method of valuation and has based his decision on relevant material'. We do not intend to interfere with that finding by entertaining this appeal. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Admission and hearing of an appeal under Section 260A based on defined and limited principles of law.3. Evaluation of the method of accounting valuation of shares and the decision based on relevant material.Analysis:Issue 1: Condonation of DelayThe High Court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, where a delay of 229 days was shown. The court, after finding sufficient cause, condoned the delay and directed the department to register the appeal immediately.Issue 2: Admission and Hearing of the AppealIn the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the court carefully scrutinized the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the revenue and the assessee. The court noted that the principles of law for admission and hearing of an appeal under Section 260A are well-defined and limited. While the revenue's counsel presented plausible views on methods of accounting valuation of shares, the court accepted the tribunal's finding that the valuer followed an accepted method of valuation based on relevant material. Consequently, the court decided not to interfere with the tribunal's finding and dismissed the application for admission, along with dismissing the appeal without admission.Issue 3: Evaluation of Valuation MethodThe court emphasized that the valuer's decision was based on relevant material and followed an accepted method of valuation. Despite the revenue's counsel presenting plausible views, the court upheld the tribunal's finding and declined to entertain the appeal, as the views presented did not warrant interference with the tribunal's decision.In conclusion, the High Court's judgment involved the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, the application of defined principles for admission and hearing of appeals under Section 260A, and the evaluation of the valuation method for shares based on relevant material. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to accepted methods of valuation and respecting the tribunal's findings in such matters.