2025 (7) TMI 758 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT sets aside deletion of unexplained share application money addition under section 56(2)(viib) for fresh adjudication

ITO – 12 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Acute Retail Infra Private Limited

ITAT Mumbai set aside CIT(A)'s order deleting addition of unexplained share application money under section 56(2)(viib). The assessee received share ... Unexplained share application money - addition being the share application money received by the assessee u/s 56(2)(viib) - assessee received share capital and security premium in their balance sheet as on 31.03.2014, even though no shares were issued in exchange for the share application money received - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that no reasons have been recorded for the deletion of the addition made by the AO under section 56(2)(viib) - details as noted byCIT(A) of the impugned order were not under consideration before the AO. Thus, it becomes all the more necessary for the learned CIT(A) to seek a report on the same from the AO. However, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that no steps in this regard were taken by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and passing a reasoned order. Appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the appeal are:(a) Whether the addition of Rs. 62,82,86,580/- as unexplained share application money under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, given that the assessee received share capital and security premium in its balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 but did not issue shares against the share application money received.(b) Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made under section 56(2)(viib) without assigning any reason and merely relying on the assessee's submissions without seeking further verification or a report from the Assessing Officer.(c) The correctness of the valuation of shares and the related accounting treatment of share application money and its impact on the taxability under section 56(2)(viib).2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Legitimacy of Addition Under Section 56(2)(viib) on Unexplained Share Application MoneyThe relevant legal framework is section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, which taxes any consideration received by a closely held company for issue of shares exceeding the fair market value (FMV) of such shares as income from other sources. The provision aims to curb the practice of receiving share capital at inflated prices to evade tax.The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had received Rs. 62,82,86,580/- as share application money from its holding company but had not issued shares against the said amount. The AO noted that this amount was shown in the balance sheet as share capital and security premium as of 31.03.2014, but the shares were not actually issued. Furthermore, the assessee had invested this money as long-term loans and advances to related parties. The AO concluded that the subscription to share premium was unjustifiable and treated the amount as income under section 56(2)(viib).The AO's reasoning was based on the failure of the assessee to furnish satisfactory explanations and documents in response to notices under section 142(1), and the circumstantial evidence indicating that the share application money was not genuine consideration for shares issued.The Court acknowledged the AO's reliance on the statutory provisions and the factual matrix, including the absence of share issuance and the diversion of funds as loans to related parties, which raised suspicion about the genuineness of the capital infusion.Issue (b): Validity of Deletion of Addition by the CIT(A) Without Reasoned OrderThe CIT(A) deleted the addition made under section 56(2)(viib) solely based on the assessee's submission dated 11.04.2024, which purportedly demonstrated that even after excluding certain liabilities and assets (loans and advances to related parties), the net worth and share valuation justified the premium claimed.However, the CIT(A) did not record any reasons for this deletion beyond accepting the assessee's valuation report. The CIT(A) also did not seek a report or verification from the AO regarding the new facts and figures presented during the appeal, which were not part of the AO's original assessment proceedings.The Court found this approach flawed as the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasoned order and did not follow the procedural requirement of seeking the AO's comments on the new evidence. This omission undermined the appellate process and the principles of natural justice.The Court emphasized that the appellate authority must independently verify and record reasons when reversing an addition, especially in cases involving complex valuation and related party transactions.Issue (c): Valuation of Shares and Application of Law to FactsThe assessee's submission argued that the valuation report showed a share value of Rs. 3,670/- per share, including a premium of Rs. 3,660/- per share, even after excluding loans and advances to related parties amounting to Rs. 36 crores. The total assets and liabilities were recalculated to demonstrate a net worth supporting the premium valuation.The AO had not considered this valuation in the original assessment, and the CIT(A) accepted it without independent verification.The Court noted that valuation of shares for the purpose of section 56(2)(viib) requires careful scrutiny of the assets, liabilities, and genuineness of the transactions. The mere submission of a valuation report without corroborative evidence or cross-examination is insufficient.The diversion of share application money as loans to related parties raised questions on the bona fide nature of the capital infusion and the correctness of the valuation.The Court held that the valuation issue and the genuineness of share application money require fresh adjudication with full opportunity to the parties and proper verification by the AO.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and passing of a reasoned order. The Court observed:'No reasons have been recorded for the deletion of the addition made by the AO under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Further, the details as noted by the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 3.4 of the impugned order were not under consideration before the AO. Thus, it becomes all the more necessary for the learned CIT(A) to seek a report on the same from the AO. However, from the perusal of the record, it is evident that no steps in this regard were taken by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and passing a reasoned order.'The core principles established include:(i) The addition under section 56(2)(viib) can be made if share application money is received without issuance of shares or if the premium is unjustified.(ii) The appellate authority must record reasoned orders and cannot delete additions merely on the basis of unverified submissions.(iii) New evidence or submissions made during appeal proceedings should be referred back to the AO for verification before acceptance.(iv) The genuineness of share application money and valuation of shares require detailed scrutiny, especially when funds are diverted to related parties.On the facts, the final determination is that the matter requires fresh consideration by the CIT(A) with proper verification and reasoned findings, and the Revenue's grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.