Tribunal remands valuation case for fresh decision on DCF method

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh decision based on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method for valuation of shares. The AO was directed to re-examine the valuation issue following the DCF method, giving the Assessee an opportunity for a hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO cannot change the method chosen by the Assessee but can challenge the methodology and assumptions. The primary responsibility to prove the correctness of the valuation report lies with the Assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Method of valuation of shares (DCF method vs. NAV method).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Assessee's appeal was delayed by 132 days due to the failure of the group CFO and director to notify the Group Chairman about the impugned order. The CFO resigned and stopped attending the office since April 2019. The delay was discovered by the Chartered Accountant in a meeting on 30.9.2019, who then filed the appeal. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and condoned the delay.

2. Applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether the revenue authorities were justified in invoking Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, which taxes the difference between the fair market value (FMV) and the issue price of shares issued at a premium. Section 56(2)(viib) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, effective from April 1, 2013. It mandates that any consideration received by a company, not substantially held by the public, in excess of the FMV of shares shall be taxable. The FMV can be determined either by prescribed methods (Rule 11UA) or substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer based on asset values.

3. Method of Valuation of Shares (DCF Method vs. NAV Method):
The Assessee, engaged in the hospitality business, issued shares on 14.8.2012 at a premium based on the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this method, stating that the DCF method was permissible only after the amendment of Rule 11UA on 29.11.2012. The AO applied the Net Asset Value (NAV) method, resulting in a tax liability of Rs. 2,74,51,952. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.

The Tribunal held that the DCF method, recognized during the relevant assessment year (AY 2013-14), should have been considered. The valuation should be based on methods recognized by the legislature, even if introduced post the date of share issue. The AO and CIT(A) should have examined the DCF method instead of rejecting it on technical grounds.

The Tribunal referred to the ITAT, Bangalore Bench's decision in VBHC Value Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court's decision in Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT, which emphasized that the AO can scrutinize the valuation report but must adhere to the DCF method if opted by the Assessee. The AO cannot change the method but can challenge the methodology and assumptions if not satisfied.

Conclusion and Directions:
The Tribunal concluded that the valuation issue needs to be re-examined by the AO following the DCF method. The AO should scrutinize the valuation report, and if unsatisfied, determine a fresh valuation either by himself or through an independent valuer, but the basis must remain the DCF method. The primary onus to prove the correctness of the valuation report lies with the Assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the Assessee an opportunity for a hearing.

Result:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh decision based on the DCF method.

---