2022 (11) TMI 1465 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Delhi deletes additions under sections 56(2)(viib) and 68, remits expense disallowance for fresh examination

M/s. Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (4), Faridabad

M/s. Sparsh Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (4), Faridabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of expenses.3. Addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.4. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The first issue concerns the addition of Rs.29,89,200/- under section 56(2)(viib), representing share premium received on the sale of shares. The assessee, a corporate entity promoting health clubs, beauty parlours, and yoga centres, had allotted shares at a premium. The Assessing Officer computed the fair market value of the shares at Rs.34.10 each, while the assessee's independent valuer determined it at Rs.50 per share using the Discounted Free Cash Flow (DCF) method. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's valuation and added the amount to the income. The Tribunal noted that the fair market value should be determined as per the assessee's chosen method under rule 11UA and that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute his own valuation. The Tribunal cited several decisions, including M/s. Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. and Cinestan Entertainment (P). Ltd., which support the assessee's right to choose the valuation method. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition, deeming it unsustainable.2. Disallowance of expenses:The second issue involves the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.5,29,311/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, arguing that the assessee had not carried out any business during the year and that the interest income should be assessed under 'income from other sources.' The Tribunal observed that the assessee was in the process of setting up its business and had incurred expenses to maintain its corporate status. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to verify the nature of the expenses and the interest income's nexus with the business.3. Addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The third issue pertains to the addition of Rs.22,50,000/- under section 68 by way of enhancement made by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assessing Officer had accepted the investments in shares after thorough inquiry, but the Commissioner (Appeals) questioned the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors. The Tribunal noted that all necessary documents were available and the Assessing Officer had found no deficiencies. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had acted on presumptions without independent inquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition.4. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The fourth issue relates to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) based on the additions made in the quantum proceedings. Since the Tribunal had deleted some additions and remitted others for fresh adjudication, there was no surviving addition to form the basis for the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c).Conclusion:The appeal in ITA No. 170/Del/2022 was partly allowed, with the addition under section 56(2)(viib) deleted, the disallowance of expenses remitted for fresh adjudication, and the addition under section 68 deleted. The appeal in ITA No. 246/Del/2022 was allowed, resulting in the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c).