2013 (12) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidence in the form of an opinion given by SSP & Co. regarding the valuation of rights awarded to AMIF I Ltd. without affording an opportunity to the A.O as required by Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 before admitting such leading & fresh evidence. (b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that SSP & Co. is not a statutory body prescribed by any authority to give such reports and that the finding given by SSP & Co. is not based on a method of study subject to or sanctioned by any professional body. (c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there were certain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....covered by the said decision. 4. After carefully considering the orders passed by the CIT (A) as well as AO, we find that exactly similar issues had come up for consideration before the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Abhijit Rajan (Supra) wherein the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of AO to consider the matter afresh in the light of relevant material that assessee had produced before the CIT (A) and ITAT. The relevant grounds of appeals raised by the Department as well as the findings given by the Tribunal for the sake of ready reference is reproduced here below: Grounds of Appeal: "1. (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidence in the form of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held by the AO." Finding: "2.4. At the outset, learned Departmental Representative contends that the Assessing Officer was not given an opportunity by the CIT(A) before admitting the additional evidence and, therefore, the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(A) or the AO. To this, learned counsel has no objection but learned counsel suggests that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so as he can consider the matter afresh in the light of entire relevant material, as the assessee is able to produce now. In view this and with the consent of the parties, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and after cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CIT(A) also erred in concluding that the price at which shares were allotted to a third party in the same period of time would be the best indicator of the actual value of shares and not following the break up value or net asset value method. Without prejudice, the CJT(A) erred in valuing the rights attached to the shares allotted to a third party @ Rs. 27.63 per share as against the valuation of @ Rs. 38.92 per share valued by SSPA & Co. in their Valuation Report, thus holding that the Appellant obtained benefit @ Rs. 38.25 per share of GIPL, to be taxed in the hands of the Appellant under Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act". 7. At the outset the learned Counsel submitted that Ground No.1 is not pressed. Thus the same is being dismissed as no....