2022 (7) TMI 625 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeals, removes additions under Section 68, emphasizes proper inquiry

Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-1 (2) Faridabad, Haryana, Dayalu Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-1 (2) Faridabad, Haryana And Devesh Cinemas Versus ITO Ward-2 (1) Faridabad, Haryana

Dayalu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-1 (2) Faridabad, Haryana, Dayalu Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-1 (2) Faridabad, Haryana And Devesh ... Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition under Section 68 of the Act for unexplained share premium and share capital.3. Enhancement of income under Section 251(1) by invoking Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act.4. Issuance of valid show cause notice for enhancement of income.5. Consideration of documentary evidence and valuation method.Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Assessment Framed Under Section 143(3):The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment framed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was initially processed under Section 143(1) and later selected for scrutiny to verify large share premium received during the year. The AO made an addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- under Section 68 for share premium, which was later reduced by the CIT(A) to Rs. 12,00,000/-.2. Addition Under Section 68 for Unexplained Share Premium and Share Capital:The assessee argued that they provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to share premium and share capital. Documents included certificates of incorporation, MOA, AOA, independent auditor's report, balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, income tax returns, bank statements, and a valuation report under Rule 11UA(2)(b) from a Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal found that the authorities had dismissed these documents without proper inquiry or contrary evidence, thereby erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- under Section 68.3. Enhancement of Income Under Section 251(1) by Invoking Section 56(2)(viib):The CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee by rejecting the valuation report provided under Rule 11UA(2)(b) and applying Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal referred to the case of Cinestan Entertainment (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, which held that the AO cannot substitute its own valuation in place of the valuation arrived by the assessee under the DCF method or NAV method. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the valuation report and enhancing the income without proper basis.4. Issuance of Valid Show Cause Notice:The assessee contended that the CIT(A) enhanced the income without issuing a valid show cause notice, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 251(1). The Tribunal agreed that the enhancement was done without providing an opportunity for hearing, thereby violating procedural requirements.5. Consideration of Documentary Evidence and Valuation Method:The Tribunal emphasized that the authorities failed to verify the authenticity of the documents provided by the assessee and did not conduct any further inquiry. It was held that once the assessee furnishes documents to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifts to the AO to bring contrary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the valuation method adopted by the assessee under Rule 11UA(2)(b) should not have been dismissed without proper grounds.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting the additions made under Section 68 and setting aside the enhancement of income under Section 251(1) by invoking Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper inquiry and consideration of documentary evidence and valuation methods as prescribed by law.Order Pronounced:The appeals in ITA No. 6173/DEL/2019, ITA No. 6174/DEL/2019, and ITA No. 6184/DEL/2019 were allowed, and the order was pronounced in the Open Court on July 12, 2022.