Facts of the Case
The assessee filed his return of income electronically on
28.02.2017 declaring total income of ₹12,68,070. The case was selected for
scrutiny assessment and statutory notices were issued.
During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed
that the assessee had sold 12,800 shares of M/s Procon India Private Limited
for a total consideration of ₹3,00,03,200.
To verify the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the shares, a notice
under Section 133(6) was issued to the company and its directors asking them to
furnish the method adopted for valuation of the shares.
Upon examining the details, the Assessing Officer formed the view that the assessee had received ₹1,56,66,432 in excess of the FMV of the shares. The said excess amount was treated as income from other sources, and the long-term capital gains were recomputed accordingly.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the excess amount received
on sale of shares as income from other sources due to alleged excess over
the FMV.
- Whether
the valuation report of a Merchant Banker determining FMV under Rule 11UA
should have been considered.
- Whether the assessee should be allowed to submit additional evidence relating to valuation of shares.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee)
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer passed the
assessment order in haste and did not provide sufficient opportunity to furnish
a valuation report from a Merchant Banker determining the FMV of shares.
It was submitted that the shares were sold pursuant to an
agreement dated 05.02.2015 with the buyers for a consideration of ₹3 crore.
The assessee further stated that the value of shares had been determined using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, and the FMV was supported by a Merchant Banker’s valuation report, though the same could not be submitted earlier.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
The Departmental Representative supported the findings of the
Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), contending that the assessee had sufficient
opportunity during assessment proceedings to submit the valuation report but
failed to do so.
The revenue authorities maintained that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.
Court Findings
The Tribunal observed that there was no dispute regarding the
sale of 12,800 shares by the assessee.
However, the Tribunal noted that the Merchant Banker’s
valuation report, which the assessee relied upon to support the FMV determined
under the DCF method, had never been examined by the lower authorities.
In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal considered it appropriate that the valuation report be examined before deciding the issue.
Court Order
The ITAT restored the matter to the file of the Assessing
Officer with directions to:
- Examine
the valuation report justifying the FMV of shares sold for ₹3 crore, and
- Decide
the issue afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
assessee.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Important Clarification
The Tribunal emphasized that where the FMV of shares is disputed, and a valuation report exists, the same must be examined by the authorities before determining tax liability. Failure to examine such evidence may justify remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Sections Involved
- Section
133(6) – Power to call for information
- Section
56 / Income from Other Sources (implication in excess consideration)
- Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules – Determination of Fair Market Value of shares
Link to download the order - https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1703238360-1998%20del%202022.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment