Brand Bazooka Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram V. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

ITA 6860/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9778 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6860/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Brand Bazooka Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 880, Back Ground Floor, UdyogVihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon. PAN: AAFCB6318L VersuS Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Kanv Bali, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 28.09.2022 Date of order : 28.09.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.06.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-I, Gurgaon (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee neither appeared nor filed any application of adjournment. Though the notices of hearings of the instant appeal were sent to the Assessee on various occasions including for 28-09-2022 at the address mentioned in Form-36, however, the same returned back by Postal Departmentwith the remark “Left House”, meaning thereby the assesse is not situated at the said address, hence in the constrained circumstances, we deem it appropriate to decide this appeal as ex-parte after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the orders passed by the authorities below. ITA No. 6860/Del/2019 2 3. Brief facts, relevant for adjudication in the instant appeal, are that the Assesseeby filling its return of income on dated 16.10.2016 declared the loss of Rs.26,32,741/-. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee had issued 30,000 shares at face value of Rs.10/- and at premium of Rs.140/- per share. Accordingly, the Assessee received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as value of shares and Rs.42,00,000/- as share premium. On being asked, the Assessee explained that the Assessee issued shares at a premium on the basis of valuation report of the valuer. The Assessing Officer ultimately by holding that the valuation done by the valuer was not correct, rejected the DCF method of valuation adopted by the Assessee and valued the shares at the rate of 29.05 per share, by adopting the NAV method. Accordingly, the difference of Rs.36,28,500/- was added back to the income of the Assessee u/s. 56(2)(viib). 3.1 Further, the Assessing Officer also noticed that the Assessee had shown gross receipts of Rs.63,84,654/- whereas as per the Form 26AS, the total receipts worked out to Rs.70,62,863/-, which could not be explained by the Assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer also added the difference of Rs.6,78,209/- to the total income of the Assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the aforesaid additions holding that the valuation adopted by the Assessee was not satisfactory, in view of the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 94 taxmann.com 112 and that the Assessee also failed to explain the difference between the gross receipts declared by it and that shown in Form 26AS. 5. Heard the ld. DR and perused the record. On perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we observe that the Assessee has utterly failed to rebut the conclusions drawnin the orders passed by the authorities below. For want of any plausible explanation against the defects in valuation of shares,as pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the report of the valuer and also there being no explanation regarding the difference in the gross receipts appears in Form 26AS, as noted above, we are inclined, notto interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee is liable to be dismissed. ITA No. 6860/Del/2019 3 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/09/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT Assistant Registrar ITAT New Delhi