TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. On perusal of the record, it is observed that on previous occasions also no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, apart from some intermittent representation on a few dates of hearing on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to dispose off the present appeal ex-parte, qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative ('learned DR') and based on the material available on record. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: "1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,96,000/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Since the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 59 per share in excess, the Assessing Officer ('AO') vide order dated 29/03/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.25,96,000, under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. In further appeal, the learned CIT(A) noticed that the allotment of shares to the promoter director of the assessee company on which excess share consideration of Rs. 59 per share was also charged by the assessee was not considered while invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act in the assessment order. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) issued notice for enhancement under section 251(2) of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Boer 6661 4. Kamal Morarka 31,250 5. Neville Tuli 56,250 Total 1,06,911 9. In the present case, as is evident from the record, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the fair market value of the shares arrived on the basis of the valuation report dated 15/09/2012 by using the DCF method was Rs.341 per share. Out of the aforesaid 5 individuals to whom the shares were allotted by the assessee, one person viz. Mr. Mark Anthony De Boer, was a non-resident and therefore both the AO as well as the learned CIT(A) accepted that provision of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is not applicable in respect of shares allotted to a non-resident. In respect of the other 4 individuals to whom shares allotted by the assessee in excess ....