KEEP LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(1)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1692/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 June 2024AY 2014-2015Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal admitted the additional grounds and the fresh evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Considering it proper and in the interest of justice, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the newly admitted evidence and decide the issue accordingly.

What were the facts?

The appellant challenged an addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 56(2)(viib) concerning the difference in share price, which was previously confirmed by a coordinate bench for the same assessee. The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence, including an addendum to the valuation report and a share buyback offer letter, claiming they were not available during previous assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Admissibility of additional evidence not presented before lower authorities; Remand of the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of addition under section 56(2)(viib) after reviewing new evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Sanghvi, C.A
For Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), S.R. D.R

O R D E R

Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal has been filed against the order of the Ld. CIT Appeal passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [the ‘Act’ in short] vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050750385(1) Dated 14/03/2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The following grounds of appeal have been raised:

1. “Ld. CIT(A) as erred in law as well as in facts in confirming addition made by Ld. assessing officer u/s. 56(2 2. )(viib) in case of the appellant. Appellant crave leave to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal

.”

3. The appellant has raised additional grounds of appeal and requested the bench to consider the additional evidence within the scope of rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rule, 1963 on the ground that the appellant could not submit the following evidences before the Ld. assessing officer because the same was not available during the course of assessment proceedings. a. Copy of Addendum to Valuation Report b. Copy of offer letter of the promoters has first offered for buyback of shares.

4. It is found that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai”H” Bench, Mumbai in the case of assessee itself vide dated 31/08/2023 for the A.Y 2014-15 has already confirmed the order of the AO/Ld. CIT (A) who have rightly added the difference in share price u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the shares were allotted at more than the value determined by the auditor in his valuation report.

5. However, the appellant brought before us under Rule 29 fresh evidence i.e., the copy of addendum to valuation report and copy of offer letter of the promoters which was first offered for buyback shares and claimed that these additional evidences were not available both before the Ld. Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT (A) at the time of deciding the issue at hand. 6. After giving due consideration of these documents, we find it proper and in the interest of justice to admit the additional grounds raised by the appellant and restore the matter back to the file of the AO to consider the same and decide the issue accordingly.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2024.

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 →