INNOVIOR ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(3), BANGALORE

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER

3. As against the said order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by raising various grounds. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for the non-appearance of the assessee and therefore the assessee preferred this appeal before this Tribunal with the following grounds .

1. The orders of Learned CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed for: non-consideration of material on record and submissions of the appellant want of application of principles of natural justice. (Tax Effect of above ground: 15,98,397/-)

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal and hereby confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer. The order passed by learned assessing officer being bad in law and void-ab- inito was required to be quashed instead of being confirmed. (Tax Effect of above ground: 15,98,397/-) Without prejudice: 3.1 In any case and without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 87,27,212/- to the returned income of the appellant u/s 56(2) (viib) of the act. 3.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, the shares issued by the appellant were at fair market value and the addition made u/s 56(2) (viib) of the act being wholly erroneous both in facts and bad in law is to be deleted. (Tax Effect of above ground: 15,98,397/-) 4.1. The authorities below have erred in rejecting the discounted cash flow method adopted by the appellant for valuation of shares and have also erred in adopting Net Asset value method for computing the fair market value of the shares of the appellant. On proper appreciation of facts and the law applicable, the appellant being in service sector the Net Asset Value Method is not the appropriate method of valuation and the same is to be rejected and the valuation method by adopted by appellant is to be accepted. 4.2. The authorities below have erred in holding that the value adopted by the appellant is higher than the Fair Market Value. On proper appreciation of facts and the law Chartered Accountant, an expert in valuation and same should have been accepted without any variation and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) should have upheld the Fair Market Value as adopted by the appellant. (Tax Effect of above ground: 15,98,397/-) 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s.234B. The interest having levied been erroneously is to be deleted. (Tax Effect of above ground: 4,05,210/-) 6. In view of the above and on the grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer be quashed or atleast the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) be deleted, the valuation as done by the appellant be accepted and the interest levied be also deleted. (Tax Effect of above ground: 15,98,397/-)”

8. We accepted the reason stated by the Ld.AR for non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore we are inclined to set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th September, 2024.