2024 (1) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appeal and the delay as averred is 164 days, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel says that, as a matter of fact, there is no delay. 2.1. In this behalf, he has drawn our attention to the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by this Court in ITA 278/2023. This order discloses that on 16.05.2023, Mr. Rai had sought leave to withdraw the appeal and the accompanying applications, with liberty to file a fresh appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition and pending applications were dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. 3. Mr. Rai points out that ITA 278/2023 was withdrawn as, inadvertently, the fact that a miscellaneous application (MA) had been filed with the Tribunal for recall of order dated 10.11.2021 had not been di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. 11.3. It is not in dispute that after scrutiny was carried out, limited to the issues raised by the AO, the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 was passed, whereby the income declared by the respondent/assessee in its return, as indicated above, was accepted. 11.4. After nearly two years and three months, the respondent/assessee's return was questioned by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short, "PCIT"]. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 22.02.2019 under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short „the Act'] was served on the respondent/assessee. 11.5. This was followed by the PCIT passing an order dated 31.03.2019 under Section 263 of the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....., Mr Kapil Mishra and Ms Kalpana Mishra. According to the PCIT, the AO had failed to examine whether the shares were transferred for a consideration or not. 11.10. As indicated above, the burden of the PCIT's order was that the AO had failed to examine the applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, read with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short, "Rules"]. It is in these circumstances that PCIT, upon applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and Rule 11UA of the Rules, concluded that Rs. 3,42,50,714/- was required to be taxed as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Act under the head "income from the other sources". 12. The moot question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal, albeit in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Value and the valuation report of an immovable property located 41A, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, 110001. (iv) The respondent/assessee via letter dated 28.11.2016 had submitted its explanation concerning the applicability of the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. (v) The valuation of the aforementioned immovable property was pegged at Rs. 17.5 Crores by the registered valuer, which was the justification for the high premium received qua the shares allotted to Experience and Sankalp. 13. Given this position, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's view that the AO had not made an enquiry about the shares issued to Experience and Sankalp at high premium, was flawed. 14. Thus, after applying the test that power....