Uberall Solutions (i) Limited, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 12(5), Pune

ITA 386/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1111 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.386/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Uberall Solutions (I) Limited, 401, Monvert Zenith, Baner Road, Pune- 411045. PAN : AAACU6172E Vs. ITO, Ward-12(5), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-5 Pune’s order dated 17.11.2017 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-5/ITO.Wd-12(5)/418/2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making section 56(2)(viib) addition of Rs.54,90,000/- in the course of assessment dated 07.03.2016 as upheld in the CIT(A)’ order as follows :- Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 24.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 26.05.2022 ITA No.386/PUN/2018 2 “3.6 I have perused carefully the material on record and the contention of the Appellant. I find that, the valuation report of the Appellant shows certain mistakes due to which the same cannot be accepted and has been rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer, who has also pointed out these mistakes. In the cash flow working, tax cost is added back to the Profit Before Tax (PBT) to arrive at Profit After Tax. The calculation of cash flow for the years 2013 and 2016 is wrong. It is also not clear, how changes in the working capital is derived. The Assessing Officer has correctly pointed out that the CA has not accepted any responsibility for accuracy and completeness of the information provided to him, nor was any audit, review or examination of any of the historical or prospective information used, performed. Nor was any opinion expressed with regard to the same. The CA has simply calculated on basis of the information provided by the Assessee without verifying or checking by independent enquiry the information supplied. The turnover has also been estimated at 123.40% increased for the year 31.03.2014. In view of this, the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the valuation report of the Appellant is upheld. The valuation taken by the Assessing Officer of the fair market value of Rs.67 per share is also upheld and the addition on this account of Rs.54,90,000/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the I. T. Act 1961 is confirmed. The Appellant fails in this Ground of Appeal which is dismissed.” 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings. A perusal of the case files suggests that the assessee has moved a petition seeking admission of additional evidence running into 74 pages dated 04.11.2019 containing its information memorandum, product information, packaging, marketing, distribution, sales assumptions and projection, employees details with cost, other expenses, projects P&L account, balance sheet, market data along with sales and expenses projection with explanation supporting its method of valuation submitted before the Assessing Officer. The Revenue could hardly dispute that all this additional evidence goes to root of the matter which requires factual verification. I therefore exercise this tribunal’s jurisdiction under Rule 28 of the Appellate ITA No.386/PUN/2018 3 Tribunal Rules, 1963 to admit the assessee’s foregoing additional evidence and restore the same to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that this tribunal has not commented any upon merits of the issue in hand involving section 56(2)(viib) addition in issue. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced on this 26 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 26 th May, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-5, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.