TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any, were raised and based upon what material the returned income was accepted. PCIT has thoroughly examined the transaction of issuance of the shares/convertible debentures and found that the AO has not examined any aspect of the genuineness of this investment in the assessee company. In fact, in proceedings u/s 263 also none appeared for the assessee company. The record shows that in proceedings u/s 263/143(3) the AO had issued a notice on 31.03.2019 upon which the assessee company had furnished replies on e-filing portal and considering the same the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 has been passed making the addition. There is no material before us to draw a conclusion that the valuation taken by the assessee company was correct and ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The AO was required to examine and verify the justification of share premium with regard to the FMV and creditworthiness of the subscriber to whom the said shares/CCDs have been allotted at premium. The AO had simply placed the submission on record without verifying the ITR of the subscriber from the concerned AO or issued any notice u/s 133(6) to cross verify the genuineness of the transactions. Hence, the assessment order passed by the AO was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Vide the said order, the AO was directed to frame the assessment order afresh w.r.t. the applicability of section 56(viib)/68 of the Act after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 3. As per the above directions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts i.e the assessee company has issued 10,00,000/- Compulsory Convertible Debentures (CCDs) at Rs. 249 per shares against face value of Rs. 10 each and received premium of Rs. 24,90,00,000. But the correct facts are that assessee has issued 10,00,000 CCDs of face value of Rs. 10 at a premium of Rs. 10 and received Rs. 2,00,00,000. These debentures has re-paid also after the year under consideration and not converted into the equity shares. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred in law assuming jurisdiction under Sec 263 in the absence of twin condition of the order passed by the Ld. A.O being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, being satisfied. 7) On the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of this investment in the assessee company. In fact, in proceedings u/s 263 also none appeared for the assessee company. The record shows that in proceedings u/s 263/143(3) the AO had issued a notice on 31.03.2019 upon which the assessee company had furnished replies on e-filing portal and considering the same the assessment order u/s 143(3)/263 has been passed making the addition. There is no material before us to draw a conclusion that the valuation taken by the assessee company was correct and there is no error in discrediting the DCF method adopted by the assessee company. Thus there is no error in invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act r.w.r. 11UA(1)(c)(b) of the IT Rules by the AO. The ground raised in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
