TESSER TECHNOLOGY CONSULTING PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI

The instant appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai (in brevity “the CIT(A)”) bearing order No.ITA No.280/CIT(A)-11/2016-17; dated 25.10.2017 passed u/s.250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2014 – 2015. The said order was generated

The brief fact of the case is that the Assessee is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee had received an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- from M/s. Hanudev Investment Private Limited on 21.06.2010 as share application money. The amount was reflected in his balance-sheet in the continuing years. The number of shares allotted was 9058 during the Assessment Year 2014 – 2015 with its face-value as Rs.10/- and a premium value amounting to Rs.817.97. Accordingly, the allotted shares of 9058 with a value of Rs.75,00,000/- was calculated for ascertaining the fair market value during the assessment. The learned Assessing Officer calculated the fair market value as Rs.317.82 per share under Rule 11UA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and accordingly calculated the premium under the said Rule. So, the difference amount of premium per share is added back u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act amounting to Rs.46,20,938/- with the total income of the Assessee. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer.

The learned Counsel of the Assessee argued and mentioned that the Assessee had calculated the valuation of the share under the DCF Method on the date of allotment and accordingly allotted the share as per Rule 11UA of the Rules. During the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings, they were unable to submit the valuation report before the Revenue Authorities. The learned Counsel for the Assessee prayed for setting aside the matter before the learned Assessing Officer for consideration of the Assessee’s valuation.

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. During the assessment and the appeal proceedings, the Assessee had that he may be given an opportunity to explain its method of valuation as per the provisions of Rule 11UA of the Rules. A further opportunity should be granted for the Assessee to explain the matter before the Revenue Authorities. However, the learned Departmental Representative had no objection for further adjudicating the issue before the Assessing Authority. Accordingly, we direct that the matter should be set aside before the learned Assessing Officer for further consideration of the issue de novo and that the Assessee