Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on section 56(2)(viib) share premium valuation

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO under section 56(2)(viib), affirming that the provision could not be applied retrospectively and that the share premium valuation was justified. The appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals.
2. Applicability of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Justification of share premium valuation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The Revenue filed appeals with delays of 2 days and 127 days for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14, respectively. The delay was attributed to non-availability of records and the Covid-19 lockdown. The Supreme Court, in suo motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, extended the limitation period for all proceedings due to the pandemic. The Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of natural justice, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances.

2. Applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether section 56(2)(viib) could be invoked for share premiums received after its introduction on 01.04.2013, even if the shares were allotted prior to this date. The assessee allotted shares in March 2011, receiving part of the premium then, and the balance during the financial year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied section 56(2)(viib) to the latter premium received, arguing that the section applies to any consideration received in previous years starting from 01.04.2013.

The Tribunal held that section 56(2)(viib) could not be applied retrospectively to shares allotted before its enactment. The shares were allotted in 2011, and thus, the provision, effective from 01.04.2013, did not apply. The Tribunal emphasized that the date of allotment, not the date of receipt of the balance premium, was crucial. Therefore, the AO erred in invoking section 56(2)(viib) for the assessment year 2014-15.

3. Justification of Share Premium Valuation:
The AO questioned the premium valuation, asserting that the fair market value (FMV) of shares, as per the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, was Rs.10 per share, whereas the shares were issued at a premium of Rs.99.21 per share. The assessee justified the premium using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, which valued shares at Rs.109.21 per share, considering future profitability and intangible assets.

The Tribunal noted that Rule 11UA allows the assessee to choose between DCF and NAV methods for valuation. The AO cannot change the chosen method but can examine its correctness. The assessee's DCF method was valid, and the FMV at the end of the assessment year 2014-15 was Rs.147.36 per share, higher than the issue price. Additionally, shares were issued to a non-resident at a much higher premium, further validating the valuation. The Tribunal concluded that the AO erred in rejecting the DCF method and making additions under section 56(2)(viib).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO under section 56(2)(viib), affirming that the provision could not be applied retrospectively and that the share premium valuation was justified. The appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years were dismissed.

---