Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056264034(1), dated 19.09.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made section 56(2)(viib) addition of Rs.29,05,01,000/- in the assessee’s hands thereby holding it to have failed in supporting the alleged extraordinary premium of Rs.90 per unit; in the course of assessment framed on 26.12.2017 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is at this stage that the assessee has invited our attention to its written submissions filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC claiming itself as the public limited company in which public is substantially interested than a private company under section 56(2)(viib) to buttress the point that the impugned addition has been wrongly made in its hands. The Revenue is equally fair in not disputing the clinching fact that there is no discussion in the assessment order to this effect nor the assessee’s plea has been rejected in specific terms in the lower appellate discussion. 5. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that once the assessee has raised the instant legal argument, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the same back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication
2 | P a g e thereof in light of all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.