TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 30.04.2016, declaring total loss at Rs. 4,61,35,010/-. The assessee's case was selected for 'limited scrutiny' under 'CASS' and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) dated 26.09.2017, 25.09.2017 and 25.10.2017 were issued and served upon the assessee respectively. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) had passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2017, thereby accepting the returned income of the assessee. 4. The ld. PCIT invoked the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act for the reason that the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the assessment order dated 15.12.2017, vide an ex parte order dated 26.03.2021. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal, which vide order dated 23.05.2022 and the same remanded back the matter to the ld. PCIT for de nova adjudication. The ld. PCIT then passed the denovo revisionary order u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 13.02.2024, setting aside the impugned order that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the issue of share premium and directed the ld. AO to examine the issue specified afresh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Subhash for the revenue on the other hand controverted the said fact and submit that the issue of limited scrutiny also correspondence to the issue for which the ld. PCIT has invoked the revisionary jurisdiction. The ld. DR though agreed that the scrutiny assessment was for limited issue pertaining to the share application money received by the assessee, the ld. PCIT's order was also on the issue of the share premium received by the assessee which according to the ld. PCIT was in excess of the market value which has to be taxed u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The ld. DR brought our attention to the reply for the clarification sought for, in the present case, where the ld. DCIT - 14(1)(1), Mumbai had stated that the reason for selection of the case of the assessee for scrutiny was for large increase in 'share application money' pending for more than one year as compared to preceding year." The ld. DR vehemently argued that the issue of limited scrutiny and the revisionary proceedings were one and the same and are not different issues which relates to the share application money/premium received by the assessee. The ld. DR also contended that the assessment order is erroneous and prejud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elect Ragina 102 Rooms 5 Star Category Hotel on own land with various high-end amenities and managed by ITC Group. Valuation based on location, proximity to other hotels, extra FAR available to hotels, demand for hospitality in prime tourist location of Goa on Per room basis of Rs. 1,34,00,000/- and further supported by real estate prices of the Hotel considering additional FAR available 136,68,00,000 Total 170,39,63,782 10. After duly considering the said valuation report, the value per share was worked out at Rs. 565 i.e., with a face value of Rs. 10 plus share premium of Rs. 555/-, where the assessee contends that for valuation of under construction property, the market value of the land and cost of construction has to be considered and when the hotel is in operation then the value of asset is to be on per room or per key basis. The details of the determination of share price as per the valuation report is tabulated hereinunder: Basis of valuation No. of Room Value per key Total Assets as per valuation certificate Acron Fortune Regina (102 Room) 102 1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t valuation of shares at face value is not practically feasible in any business. 12. The ld. PCIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and stated that the impugned assessment order is not a speaking order, where the ld. AO has failed to discuss the details of valuation or the business of the assessee and thereby held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT relied on several decisions to substantiate that the assessment order was without enquiry or verification on the issue of share premium, thereby setting aside the same to the ld. AO for de novo assessment. 13. In the above narrated facts, it is pertinent to restrict the finding to the issue where the ld. AO has conducted enquiry for the issues pertaining to the 'limited scrutiny' and had passed the assessment order after taking one of the plausible views. For this prima facie, we will have to decided whether the issue related to the revisionary proceedings is the same as the issue for which limited scrutiny was initiated. As per the limited scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) dated 18.09.2017, the following issues have been identified for examination which are reproduced h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta tab of ITS and Purchases in PEL Account) Whether value of exports and imports has been correctly shown in return of income, 15. From the above, it is evident that the issue pertinent to limited scrutiny was to verify the genuinity of the 'share application money' and whether the same is from disclosed sources or not which would come under the preview of Section 68 of the Act. Notably, the ld. PCIT has invoked Section 263 for the purpose that the premium received by the assessee for 5,99,076 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10 at a premium of Rs. 555/- was in excess of the market value and if found to be in excess has to be taxed u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. The provision of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reproduced hereinunder for ease of reference:_ 56 (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :- (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 but before the 1st....