TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding to the Assessment Year 2006-07. In the case on hand, the statute lays down that Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013. The assessee claims that if the ratio of the judgment in the case of Piu Ghosh (supra) is applied, the amendment is for FInancial Year 2013-14, relatable to the Assessment Year 2014-15. We are not interpreting the provision as such as to the date of applicability but only examining the issue as to whether the issue is debatable for the purpose of Section 154 of the Act. We find force in the arguments of the assessee that this is a debatable issue and cannot be considered a mistake apparent on record for the purpose of Section 154, in view of the contrary view taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also held that it is not a case where unaccounted money has been introduced in the hands of the assessee but rather it was the directors who brought in their money for boosting the financials of the company as share application money with share premium. He allowed Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee which relates to the addition of ₹ 26,10,981/- being share premium received from directors. In the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A)-Durgapur held that there is a mistake apparent on record for the reason that, Section 57(2)(viib) of the Act is applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14 and not from the Financial Year 2013-14. After giving notice to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that there is a mistake apparent on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 154 of the Act. He consequently relied upon certain circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 31st December, 2018 and which was apparently withdrawn subsequently after a short period for the proposition that the intention of introducing clause (viia) to Section 56(2) of the Act was never to apply these provisions to fresh issue of share capital and it was only in case of transfer of shares for inadequate consideration that the provision should apply. He relied on the decision of the Chennai A Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 1352/Chy/2018, order dt. 27/08/2018, for the proposition that clause (viia) to Section 56(2) of the Act was introduced to curb generation and use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 7. A perusal of the original assessment order passed ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A) demonstrates that relief has been granted on two grounds. We extract the relevant paragraph which is at page 6 of the original appellate order dt. 31/08/2016:- I have perused the order of the A.O. and submission of the appellant. In this case it is seen that directors have given money in order to boost the financial status of the company under the guise of share application money though the authorised share capital could have been increased. To save ROC fees for increasing the authorised share capital the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the provision as such as to the date of applicability but only examining the issue as to whether the issue is debatable for the purpose of Section 154 of the Act. We find force in the arguments of the assessee that this is a debatable issue and cannot be considered a mistake apparent on record for the purpose of Section 154 of the Act, in view of the contrary view taken by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. 7.2. Coming to the second ground on which the ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee, we find that no rectification has been passed u/s 154 of the Act reversing the reasons given by the ld. CIT(A), based on which relief was given. Thus the entire decision cannot have been reversed in this order passed u/s 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
