M/S JHARKHAND STEEL MANUFACTURER PVT. LTD.,JAMSHEDPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 370/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 April 2023AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that making a double addition on the same issue and for the same share application money received in earlier years is not justified. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee received share application money, part of which was received in prior assessment years and already subjected to scrutiny and additions under Section 56(2)(viib). The Assessing Officer made a fresh addition for the same money in the current assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the same share application money, already assessed in prior years, can be subjected to addition again in the current assessment year under Section 56(2)(viib) leading to double taxation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 56(2)(viib),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.369/Ran/2018
I.T.A. No.370/Ran/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

I.T.A. No.369/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd...….…..…...…....................…..….. Appellant Station Road, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur. [PAN: AABCJ4471C] vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jamshedpur.………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Jharkhand Steel Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd...…...…....................…..….. Appellant NS 81, Phase 5 Adiyapur Industrial Road, Gamharia, Jamshedpur. [PAN: AABCJ6808M] vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Jamshedpur.………………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri Akshay Ringasia, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 01, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28, 2023 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The captioned two appeals have been preferred by the different but related assessees against the separate orders dated 14.08.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act M/s Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd M/s Jharkhand Steel Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2014-15 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Since, common issues are involved in both the appeals, hence, these have heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

The appeal in ITA No.369/Ran/2018 is taken as lead case for the purpose of narration of facts. The assessee in this appeal has contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.17,77,203/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act on account of higher share application money received than the fair market value. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had allotted 36,100 @ INR 1,000 each. Of these, application money for 16,600 shares was received in the assessment year 2013-14 & 2012- 13 (prior years) itself. That such prior application money received was subject to scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act during AY 2013-14 itself and certain additions were also made under section 56(2)(viib) at that point of time. That the Ld. Assessing Officer re-assessed such money received in prior years again in the given year, suggesting that the same was taxable on allotment. Thus, the Assessing Officer went on to make double taxation of the same income by breaking principle of consistency. The ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that since the share application money received by the assessee in earlier years has already been subjected to assessment and certain additions have also been made u/s 56(2)(viib) on that point of time, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the double addition in respect of same amount and also on the same issue.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →