Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 534 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment of income - addition on account of inadequate consideration - Difference between the value of the shares allotted and consideration paid u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act Held that:- The court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous - a statute being an edict of the Legislature - The language employed in a statue is a determinative factor of the legislative intent, the foundational basis of any interpretation, is to be found from the words used by the Legislature itself Relying upon Padmasundra Rao and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2002 (3) TMI 44 - SUPREME Court] and Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2005 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME Court] - the consequences cannot alter the meaning of a statutory provision where such meaning is plain and unambiguous, though could certainly help to fix its meaning in case of doubt and ambiguity. The provisions/s, though no doubt a charging provision, is an extension of the deeming provisions of Chapter VI of the Act, laying down the statutory rules of evidence, incorporating the principles of common law jurisprudence - No ambiguity or absurdity or unintended consequence has been either observed by us or brought to notice - The provision is well founded, even as it is settled that hardship in a case would not by itself lead to supplying casus omissus or reading down the provision thus, no property however being passed on to the assessee on the allotment of the additional shares, no addition in terms of the provision itself shall arise in the facts of the case - the provision of s. 56(2)(vii)(c) shall not apply and the amount cannot be assessed as income in the hands of the assessee on the ground of inadequate consideration Decided in favour of Assessee.
|