2023 (11) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 435 days. 2. Given the nature of delay involved and the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 520/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 5. Via the instant appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 6. The singular issue, even according to Mr Sanjeev Menon, learned standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether deletion of the addition of Rs. 4,08,60,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt, "CIT(A)"] has returned a finding of fact. The details of the lenders/depositors both with regard to their name and the amount received and utilisation of the amount is set forth hereafter: DATE OF RECEIPT NAME OF DEPOSITOR AMOUNT RECEIVED DATE OF PAYMENT PURPOSE OF UTILISATION AMOUNT UTILISED 16/10/2012 Mr. Naval Kisore 3,7,00,000.00       16/10/2012 Sri Durga Automobiles 1,70,000.00 19/10/2012 Purchase of Land 3,500,000.00 17/10/2012 India wire General Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1,800,000.00 19/10/2012 Purchase of Land 3,500,000.00 07/11/2012 Mr Naval Kishore 1,000,000.00 12/11/2012 Purchase of Land 1,000,000.00 07/11/2012 India wire ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt returned 5,500,000.00 31/12/2012 Mr Naval Kishore 4,500,000.00 05/01/2013 SA Alloys Pvt. Ltd.-Amount returned 3,000,000.00 03/01/2023 Mr Naval Kishore 3,500,000.00 05/01/2013 SA Alloys Pvt. Ltd.-Amount returned 3,00,000.00 03/01/2023 Mr Naval Kishore 4,500,000.00       11. The CIT(A) has also returned a finding of fact that except for the amounts that were returned to an entity going by the name S.A. Alloys Pvt. Ltd., the loans and deposits received from other persons and entities were converted into share capital. 12. Insofar as S.A. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. was concerned, the loan received was repaid between 03.01.2013 and 05.01.2013. 13. In repayment of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to notice as to why the share premium received by it with respect to subject shares should not be treated as income in accordance with the provisions of the Section 56(2) read with Section 2(24) of the Act. 20. The CIT(A), in our view, correctly understood the said aspects of the matter. 21. We may also note that the AO had made an observation to the effect that share capital and share premium received prior to 29.11.2012 was not covered by Rule 11UA of the Act. This view was taken as said provision was inserted in the Rules only on 29.11.2012. 22. What is not contested is that the respondent/assessee did submit the valuation report concerning the subject shares. In valuing the subject shares, in particular, in arriving at the com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Tribunal via the impugned order sustained the deletion of the addition. 29. The rationale adopted by the CIT(A) has received the approval of the Tribunal. 30. However, Mr Menon says that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the addition was made under Section 68 of the Act and therefore, the discussion with regard to the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Act was not called for in the instant matter. 31. We are unable to agree with this submission of Mr Menon, for the reason that although the addition was sought to be made under Section 68 of the Act, it was in fact the AO, who had referred to Rule 11UA and Section 56(2) of the Act. 31.1 The AO, as indicated above, proceeded to enqu....