Taxpayer's election under Rule 11UA(2) upheld; addition under s.56(2)(viib) deleted, expense disallowance rejected; AO cannot substitute NAV; statutory option protected

ITAT upheld taxpayer's position: disallowance of business expenses and unabsorbed depreciation was rejected following coordinate-bench precedent, and additions under s.56(2)(viib) were deleted. The tribunal held the assessee validly elected discounted cash flow under rule 11UA(2) to value unquoted shares; AO could not unilaterally substitute net asset value merely because actual results differed from projections. AO may examine the correctness of the chosen method but cannot deny the statutory option; the CIT(A)'s deletion of the s.56(2)(viib) addition was sustained and the departmental grounds were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of business expenses and unabsorbed depreciation.
2. Deletion of addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Business Expenses and Unabsorbed Depreciation:
The appeal was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issue was the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of business expenses and unabsorbed depreciation. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the assessee following the order of the predecessor for the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire business expenditure/loss claimed by the assessee of Rs. 26,037,039, asserting that the expenses should be capitalized as they were pre-commencement expenses for setting up the plant for business purposes.

The assessee argued that the expenses were incurred to establish itself in the business and were necessary for future profitability. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance based on the previous year's order. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2012-13. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the grounds of appeal related to business expenses and unabsorbed depreciation.

2. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act:
The second issue involved the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had issued shares at a premium, supported by a valuation report using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. The Assessing Officer rejected this valuation, asserting that the actual performance of the company showed consistent losses, which was not in line with the projected figures used in the DCF method. The AO adopted the net asset value (NAV) method, which resulted in a negative valuation, and made an addition of Rs. 69,000,000 to the total income of the assessee.

The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld this decision. The ITAT noted that the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) allow the assessee to choose the method of valuation, and the DCF method is a valid option. The AO does not have the authority to substitute the method chosen by the assessee with another method. The ITAT emphasized that the DCF method is based on future projections and assumptions, and deviations from actual performance do not invalidate the valuation. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the grounds of appeal related to the addition under Section 56(2)(viib).

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Assessing Officer, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to business expenses, unabsorbed depreciation, and the addition made under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT emphasized the validity of the DCF method for valuation and the lack of authority of the AO to substitute the chosen method with another. The order was pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2022.

---