2020 (10) TMI 928 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Overturns Tax Authorities, Emphasizes Fair Market Value Determination

M/s. Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), Jaipur.

M/s. Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), Jaipur. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Valuation of shares and fair market value determination.3. Rejection of valuation report and additional evidence by CIT (A).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Addition Under Section 56(2)(viib):The primary issue revolves around the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 71,25,000/- under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee issued 37,500 shares at Rs. 200/- per share, including a premium of Rs. 190/-. The AO added the entire share premium amount, questioning the fair market value of the shares. The CIT (A) concurred with the AO, rejecting the valuation report provided by the assessee.2. Valuation of Shares and Fair Market Value Determination:The assessee submitted a valuation report from a Registered Valuer, determining the fair market value of shares at Rs. 230/- per share, based on the market value of assets, particularly land valued at Rs. 2,93,00,000/-. The AO and CIT (A) rejected this valuation, relying on the book value of the land at Rs. 1,30,00,000/-. The assessee argued that the fair market value should be based on the higher of the valuations determined by the methods prescribed under Rule 11UA or substantiated by the company’s assets as on the date of issue of shares. The assessee also provided a valuation based on the Discounted Free Cash Flow (DCF) method, determining the value at Rs. 178/- per share.3. Rejection of Valuation Report and Additional Evidence by CIT (A):The CIT (A) rejected the valuation based on the DCF method, stating it was not submitted before the AO and was based on an unaudited balance sheet. The CIT (A) also questioned the correctness of the Registered Valuer's report, which was not substantiated by documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not bring any contrary material or valuation report from the DVO to dispute the Registered Valuer’s assessment. It was emphasized that the AO must consider the highest valuation as per the methods prescribed under Section 56(2)(viib).Tribunal’s Findings:The Tribunal observed that the valuation report provided by the assessee was based on the prevailing market rates and was higher than the issue price of shares. The AO and CIT (A) failed to provide any contrary evidence or valuation to reject the assessee’s valuation. The Tribunal highlighted that the fair market value should be determined based on the higher of the valuations as per Rule 11UA or the company’s assets. The Tribunal also criticized the CIT (A) for not functioning as an independent appellate authority and failing to give credit to the fair market value based on the Net Assets Value method.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT (A), deleting the addition made under section 56(2)(viib). The assessee’s appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal emphasizing the need to adopt the highest valuation method as per the legislative intent and the assessee’s choice.