SHOT FORMATS DIGITAL PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI V. DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6879/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-14. The primary contention was regarding the treatment of a share premium received amounting to Rs. 14,99,57,141 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had doubted the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the subscriber, Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings II, LLC, based in Mauritius, a tax haven. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and additional evidence, leading to the decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788754 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Sreelekha Banerji vs CIT, Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVITHA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH KUREJA AW
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Revised return; Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report
• Section: 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd., 401-402, Express Zone, A wing, Western Express Highway, Malad East, Mumbai-400097. Vs. Dy. CIT-Circle 16(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAKCS 7727 H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dinesh Kureja a/w Priyanshi Chokshi and Adv. S. Sriram Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/11/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in treating premium received on issuance of shares by the Appellant, totaling to Rs. 14,99,57,141/ Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 2. On the facts and circumstanc CIT(A) and the Ld.AO erred in holding that the Appellant had not furnished any documentary evidence or confirmation, with regard to share premium amounting to Rs. 14,99,57,141/ the previous year 2012 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in holding that there was no justification for receipt of share premium amounting to Rs. 14,99,57,141/ previous year 2012 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in holding that the appellant has failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of the the allotee i.e. Matrix Partners India Investment shares were allotted in previous year 2012 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)and the Ld. AO erred in doubting the genuineness of the transaction of issue of shares of Rs. 15,00,00,001 onl extent of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141/ the genuineness of the remainder amount being face value of shares of Rs. 42,860/ 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in conclu introduced its own unaccounted money of Rs. 14,99,57,141 as share premium solely for the reason that shares have been alloted to the entity incorporated and registered in Mauritius which is a tax haven country. 7. On the facts a CIT(A) and the Ld AO have grossly erred in concluding that the transaction of receipt of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141 is a sham transaction whilst accepting the genuineness of the remainder part of the s shares Rs. 42,860/ Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in treating premium received on issuance of shares by the Appellant, totaling to Rs. 14,99,57,141/-, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld.AO erred in holding that the Appellant had not furnished any documentary evidence or confirmation, with regard to share premium amounting to Rs. 14,99,57,141/-received during the previous year 2012-13. . On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in holding that there was no justification for receipt of share premium amounting to Rs. 14,99,57,141/- on issue of shares by the appellant during the s year 2012-13. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in holding that the appellant has failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of the the allotee i.e. Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings II, LLC to whom the shares were allotted in previous year 2012-12 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)and the Ld. AO erred in doubting the genuineness of the transaction of issue of shares of Rs. 15,00,00,001 onl extent of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141/-, without doubting the genuineness of the remainder amount being face value of shares of Rs. 42,860/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in concluding that the appellant has introduced its own unaccounted money of Rs. 14,99,57,141 as share premium solely for the reason that shares have been alloted to the entity incorporated and registered in Mauritius which is a tax haven country. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO have grossly erred in concluding that the transaction of receipt of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141 is a sham transaction whilst accepting the genuineness of the remainder part of the same transaction i.e. receipt of face value of 42,860/-. Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 2 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in treating premium received on issuance of shares by the Appellant, totaling , as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the es of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld.AO erred in holding that the Appellant had not furnished any documentary evidence or confirmation, with regard received during . On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in holding that there was no justification for receipt of share premium amounting to Rs. on issue of shares by the appellant during the 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in holding that the appellant has failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of the the allotee i.e. Holdings II, LLC to whom the 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)and the Ld. AO erred in doubting the genuineness of the transaction of issue of shares of Rs. 15,00,00,001 only to the , without doubting the genuineness of the remainder amount being face value of 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld ding that the appellant has introduced its own unaccounted money of Rs. 14,99,57,141 as share premium solely for the reason that shares have been alloted to the entity incorporated and registered in Mauritius which is a nd circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) and the Ld AO have grossly erred in concluding that the transaction of receipt of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141 is a sham transaction whilst accepting the genuineness of the ame transaction i.e. receipt of face value of Printed from counselvise.com 2. At the very outset counsel for the assessee to the defect memo issued by the Registry noting a delay of 209 days in the filing of the present ap learned counsel drew support from the assessee’s application for condonation of delay, duly affirmed by an affidavit. 2.1 In the said affidavit, the Director of the assessee explained that she has, for several years, been the sole person managing the affairs of the company. She further deposed that, being a single mother entrusted with the care of a special child, she was compelled, owing to exigencies of her son’s health and specialised training requirements, to relocate from Mumbai Dehradun in March 2024. It was stated that this unavoidable shift, coupled with her personal responsibilities, resulted in diminished attention to the routine administration of the company. 2.2 It was further submitted that the assessee harboured the b fide belief that the appellate order would be served either physically or through e-mail, and was unaware that the impugned order had been uploaded on the portal. 2.3 Further it is submitted that for early disposal of the appeal, the assessee had file Court but there also it was not intimated that order was already disposed off. The assessee came to know of the disposal of the appeal only on 20.12.2024 upon receiving an e Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd outset, our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the assessee to the defect memo issued by the Registry noting a delay of 209 days in the filing of the present ap learned counsel drew support from the assessee’s application for condonation of delay, duly affirmed by an affidavit. In the said affidavit, the Director of the assessee explained that she has, for several years, been the sole person managing the affairs of the company. She further deposed that, being a single mother entrusted with the care of a special child, she was compelled, owing to exigencies of her son’s health and specialised training requirements, to relocate from Mumbai Dehradun in March 2024. It was stated that this unavoidable shift, coupled with her personal responsibilities, resulted in diminished attention to the routine administration of the company. It was further submitted that the assessee harboured the b fide belief that the appellate order would be served either physically mail, and was unaware that the impugned order had been uploaded on the portal. Further it is submitted that for early disposal of the appeal, the assessee had filed writ petition before Hon’ble Bombay High there also it was not intimated that order was already The assessee came to know of the disposal of the appeal only on 20.12.2024 upon receiving an e-mail from the ACIT, Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 3 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 , our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the assessee to the defect memo issued by the Registry noting a delay of 209 days in the filing of the present appeal. The learned counsel drew support from the assessee’s application for In the said affidavit, the Director of the assessee-company explained that she has, for several years, been the sole person managing the affairs of the company. She further deposed that, being a single mother entrusted with the care of a special-needs child, she was compelled, owing to exigencies of her son’s health and specialised training requirements, to relocate from Mumbai to Dehradun in March 2024. It was stated that this unavoidable shift, coupled with her personal responsibilities, resulted in diminished attention to the routine administration of the company. It was further submitted that the assessee harboured the bona fide belief that the appellate order would be served either physically mail, and was unaware that the impugned order had Further it is submitted that for early disposal of the appeal, before Hon’ble Bombay High there also it was not intimated that order was already The assessee came to know of the disposal of the mail from the ACIT, Printed from counselvise.com NFAC, whereafter the order was downloaded and the appeal was promptly filed, resulting in the delay now under consideration. The learned counsel accordingly prayed that, in view of the peculiar and compelling circumstances, the delay be condoned. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand opposed condonation of the delay. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The statutory scheme mandates that an appeal before the T ordinarily to be filed within sixty days of the date of communication of the order of the learned CIT(A) or of the date on which the order comes to the knowledge of the assessee, whichever is earlier. However, where sufficient cause is demonstra Tribunal is empowered to condone such delay in furtherance of substantial justice. 4.1 The principles governing condonation are well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & emphasised that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the former must prevail. The test is not the length of delay but the acceptability of the explanation. In the instan by the assessee is reproduced as under: Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd whereafter the order was downloaded and the appeal was promptly filed, resulting in the delay now under consideration. The learned counsel accordingly prayed that, in view of the peculiar and compelling circumstances, the delay be condoned.. epartmental Representative (DR) on the other hand opposed condonation of the delay. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The statutory scheme mandates that an appeal before the T ordinarily to be filed within sixty days of the date of communication of the order of the learned CIT(A) or of the date on which the order comes to the knowledge of the assessee, whichever is earlier. However, where sufficient cause is demonstrated for the delay, the Tribunal is empowered to condone such delay in furtherance of The principles governing condonation are well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471), wherein the Court emphasised that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the former must prevail. The test is not the length of delay but the acceptability of In the instant case, the relevant submission filed by the assessee is reproduced as under: Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 4 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 whereafter the order was downloaded and the appeal was promptly filed, resulting in the delay now under consideration. The learned counsel accordingly prayed that, in view of the peculiar and epartmental Representative (DR) on the other hand We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The statutory scheme mandates that an appeal before the Tribunal is ordinarily to be filed within sixty days of the date of communication of the order of the learned CIT(A) or of the date on which the order comes to the knowledge of the assessee, whichever is earlier. ted for the delay, the Tribunal is empowered to condone such delay in furtherance of The principles governing condonation are well settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land (167 ITR 471), wherein the Court emphasised that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the former must prevail. The test is not the length of delay but the acceptability of t case, the relevant submission filed Printed from counselvise.com 6. Since 2019, the Appellant Company is being solely managed by Ms Niyateey Shah. Though the Appellant at one point of time had more than 100 employees, due to disputes amongst t promoters/ key management personnel since 2019, currently the company is manned by less than 5 people. 7. Ms Shah, a single mother with a special needs child. Her son diagnosed with Down Syndrome, had developed some interest in sports. She had to 2024, to provide for his needs special training and treatment. Her personal attention on a day to day basis towards his son's training well being and training, lead to her son (i) September 2024 Championship Bench Press in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (ii) October 2024 Gold medal at the Commonwealth Classic & Equipped Powerlifting Championship in Sun City, South Africa (iii) November 2024 deadlift, and an overall Bronze medal at the IPF World Open Powerlifting Championship in Iceland. (iv) December 2024 Championship in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 8. Ms Shah's requirement of being with her son during the intense training schedule with started from January 2024 and her shifting to Dehradun in April 2024, resulted in Ms Shah's minimal involvement in administration of the Appellant Company's administration. As there was no one else who monitored and managed the f 20th December 2024 (when the Assessing Officer intimated the Appellant about the impugned order), she was unaware about the impugned order having been passed. 9. Within 10 days of the impugned order coming to her knowledge, the appeal being filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. B. The Appellant was under a reasonable belief that the appeal would be disposed off by serving a copy of the order to the Appellant, physically, or through e unaware about 20th December 2024. 10. The Appellant had duly participated in the appellate proceedings before the NFAC, and also furnished its written submissions, and reply to remand report, Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd Since 2019, the Appellant Company is being solely managed by Ms Niyateey Shah. Though the Appellant at one point of time had more than 100 employees, due to disputes amongst t promoters/ key management personnel since 2019, currently the company is manned by less than 5 people. 7. Ms Shah, a single mother with a special needs child. Her son diagnosed with Down Syndrome, had developed some interest in sports. She had to relocate to Dehradun from Mumbai, in March 2024, to provide for his needs special training and treatment. Her personal attention on a day to day basis towards his son's training well being and training, lead to her son (i) September 2024-Gold medal at the Asian Powerlifting Championship Bench Press in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (ii) October 2024 Gold medal at the Commonwealth Classic & Equipped Powerlifting Championship in Sun City, South Africa (iii) November 2024 - Silver medal in squat, Bronze medal in , and an overall Bronze medal at the IPF World Open Powerlifting Championship in Iceland. (iv) December 2024 - Overall Gold medal at the Asian Powerlifting Championship in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 8. Ms Shah's requirement of being with her son during the nse training schedule with started from January 2024 and her shifting to Dehradun in April 2024, resulted in Ms Shah's minimal involvement in administration of the Appellant Company's administration. As there was no one else who monitored and managed the financial position of the company, till 20th December 2024 (when the Assessing Officer intimated the Appellant about the impugned order), she was unaware about the impugned order having been passed. 9. Within 10 days of the impugned order coming to her ledge, the appeal being filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. B. The Appellant was under a reasonable belief that the appeal would be disposed off by serving a copy of the order to the Appellant, physically, or through e-mail. The Appellant was unaware about the order being uploaded on the online portal, till 20th December 2024. 10. The Appellant had duly participated in the appellate proceedings before the NFAC, and also furnished its written submissions, and reply to remand report, Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 5 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 Since 2019, the Appellant Company is being solely managed by Ms Niyateey Shah. Though the Appellant at one point of time had more than 100 employees, due to disputes amongst the promoters/ key management personnel since 2019, currently the 7. Ms Shah, a single mother with a special needs child. Her son diagnosed with Down Syndrome, had developed some interest in relocate to Dehradun from Mumbai, in March 2024, to provide for his needs special training and treatment. Her personal attention on a day to day basis towards his son's Asian Powerlifting (ii) October 2024 Gold medal at the Commonwealth Classic & Equipped Powerlifting Championship in Sun City, South Africa Silver medal in squat, Bronze medal in , and an overall Bronze medal at the IPF World Open Overall Gold medal at the Asian Powerlifting 8. Ms Shah's requirement of being with her son during the nse training schedule with started from January 2024 and her shifting to Dehradun in April 2024, resulted in Ms Shah's minimal involvement in administration of the Appellant Company's administration. As there was no one else who inancial position of the company, till 20th December 2024 (when the Assessing Officer intimated the Appellant about the impugned order), she was unaware about 9. Within 10 days of the impugned order coming to her ledge, the appeal being filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal. B. The Appellant was under a reasonable belief that the appeal would be disposed off by serving a copy of the order to the mail. The Appellant was the order being uploaded on the online portal, till 10. The Appellant had duly participated in the appellate proceedings before the NFAC, and also furnished its written Printed from counselvise.com 11. The Appellant was unde would be disposed off by serving a physical copy of the appeal on the Appellant, or by serving a copy over e initial period of the operation of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, the Appellant was unaware that served by uploading it on the portal, and not by physically serving a copy of the order on the Appellant. The impugned order dated 21st March 2024, came to the knowledge of the Appellant only 20th December 2024. 12. Infact, the appellant had, on 21 February 2024 and 24th July 2024, filed applications with the NFAC for early disposal of the appeal [Copy of these letters are enclosed herewith as Exhibit A). As the Appellant did not receive any response, the Appellant even filed a Writ Petition No. 4725 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 01 October 2024. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 18th November 2024 [Copy of order dated 18th November 2024 is enclosed herewith as Exhibit B] disposed off the petition (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal within 3 months without any further extension. Though the Revenue was represented in the Writ Petition, it was never brough to the notice of the Court or the Appellant that the appeal 13. Thereafter, the Appellant served the certified copy of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated 18th November 2024 with the National Faceless Appeal Centre as well as Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 19th December 2024. Thereafter, on 20th December 2024, the Appellant received an e mail from ACIT, NFAC, wherein it was stated that: \"As per the information received from ITBA team (DG System), the appeal of M/s Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt Ltd for AY 2013-14 has been Copy of order dated 18th November 2024 is enclosed herewith as Exhibit C. 14, Thus it is only on 20 December 2024, that the Appellant became aware that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed off on 21 March 2 accessed its e March 2024 passed by the NFAC u/s 250 of the Act. 15. The Appellant states and submits that it not received any communication through e Tax Department that its appeal for AY 2013 Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 11. The Appellant was under a reasonable belief that the appeal would be disposed off by serving a physical copy of the appeal on the Appellant, or by serving a copy over e-mail. Being the initial period of the operation of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, the Appellant was unaware that the Appellate Order would be served by uploading it on the portal, and not by physically serving a copy of the order on the Appellant. The impugned order dated 21st March 2024, came to the knowledge of the Appellant only 20th December 2024. he appellant had, on 21 February 2024 and 24th July 2024, filed applications with the NFAC for early disposal of the appeal [Copy of these letters are enclosed herewith as Exhibit A). As the Appellant did not receive any response, the Appellant a Writ Petition No. 4725 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 01 October 2024. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 18th November 2024 [Copy of order dated 18th November 2024 is enclosed herewith as Exhibit B] disposed off the petition with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal within 3 months without any further extension. Though the Revenue was represented in the Writ Petition, it was never brough to the notice of the Court or the Appellant that the appeal was disposed off. 13. Thereafter, the Appellant served the certified copy of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated 18th November 2024 with the National Faceless Appeal Centre as well as Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 19th December 2024. Thereafter, on 20th December 2024, the Appellant received an e mail from ACIT, NFAC, wherein it was stated that: \"As per the information received from ITBA team (DG System), the appeal of M/s Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt Ltd for AY 14 has been disposed off on 21.03.2024\" Copy of order dated 18th November 2024 is enclosed herewith as 14, Thus it is only on 20 December 2024, that the Appellant became aware that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed off on 21 March 2024. Thereafter, the Appellant accessed its e-filing portal and downloaded the order dated 21 March 2024 passed by the NFAC u/s 250 of the Act. 15. The Appellant states and submits that it not received any communication through e- mails or whatsoever from Tax Department that its appeal for AY 2013-14 had been Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 6 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 r a reasonable belief that the appeal would be disposed off by serving a physical copy of the appeal mail. Being the initial period of the operation of the Faceless Appeal Scheme, the the Appellate Order would be served by uploading it on the portal, and not by physically serving a copy of the order on the Appellant. The impugned order dated 21st March 2024, came to the knowledge of the Appellant he appellant had, on 21 February 2024 and 24th July 2024, filed applications with the NFAC for early disposal of the appeal [Copy of these letters are enclosed herewith as Exhibit A). As the Appellant did not receive any response, the Appellant a Writ Petition No. 4725 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 01 October 2024. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 18th November 2024 [Copy of order dated 18th November 2024 is enclosed herewith as Exhibit B] with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal within 3 months without any further extension. Though the Revenue was represented in the Writ Petition, it was never brough to the notice of the Court or the 13. Thereafter, the Appellant served the certified copy of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated 18th November 2024 with the National Faceless Appeal Centre as well as Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 19th December 2024. Thereafter, on 20th December 2024, the Appellant received an e- \"As per the information received from ITBA team (DG System), the appeal of M/s Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt Ltd for AY Copy of order dated 18th November 2024 is enclosed herewith as 14, Thus it is only on 20 December 2024, that the Appellant became aware that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) 024. Thereafter, the Appellant filing portal and downloaded the order dated 21 15. The Appellant states and submits that it not received any mails or whatsoever from the Income 14 had been Printed from counselvise.com disposed off. That is the reason the Appellant followed up multiple times for early hearing of appeal as well as took pains to file writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 16. The appellant humbly requests that the delay of 22, days' in filing the present appeal may be condoned having regard to the facts narrated above and bonafides of 4.2 In the present case, the assessee has set out, in considerable detail, circumstances which convincingly explain the delay. The Director, being a single parent to a special intensive sports and therapeutic training, was constrained to relocate, thereby severely limiting her involvement in the company’s administrative affairs. The affidavit also narrates the assessee’s bona fide but mistaken belief regarding the mode of communication of orders under the nascent Faceless Appeal Scheme. 4.3 It further emerges that the assessee had, in fact, been diligently pursuing the matter by filing applications for early disposal and even approaching the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition. Significantly, despite Revenue’s participation before the High Court, neither was the disposal of the appeal brought to the Court’s notice nor communicated to the assessee. The fact that the assessee came to know of the order only upon an e-mail received on 20.12.2024 stands uncontroverted, as the Revenue has filed no counter assertions. Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd disposed off. That is the reason the Appellant followed up multiple times for early hearing of appeal as well as took pains to file writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. e appellant humbly requests that the delay of 22, days' in filing the present appeal may be condoned having regard to the facts narrated above and bonafides of the appellant. n the present case, the assessee has set out, in considerable stances which convincingly explain the delay. The Director, being a single parent to a special-needs child undergoing intensive sports and therapeutic training, was constrained to relocate, thereby severely limiting her involvement in the company’s trative affairs. The affidavit also narrates the assessee’s bona fide but mistaken belief regarding the mode of communication of orders under the nascent Faceless Appeal Scheme. It further emerges that the assessee had, in fact, been g the matter by filing applications for early disposal and even approaching the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition. Significantly, despite Revenue’s participation before the High Court, neither was the disposal of the appeal Court’s notice nor communicated to the assessee. The fact that the assessee came to know of the order only upon an mail received on 20.12.2024 stands uncontroverted, as the Revenue has filed no counter-affidavit disputing the factual Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 7 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 disposed off. That is the reason the Appellant followed up multiple times for early hearing of appeal as well as took pains to file writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. e appellant humbly requests that the delay of 22, days' in filing the present appeal may be condoned having regard to the n the present case, the assessee has set out, in considerable stances which convincingly explain the delay. The needs child undergoing intensive sports and therapeutic training, was constrained to relocate, thereby severely limiting her involvement in the company’s trative affairs. The affidavit also narrates the assessee’s bona fide but mistaken belief regarding the mode of communication of orders under the nascent Faceless Appeal Scheme. It further emerges that the assessee had, in fact, been g the matter by filing applications for early disposal and even approaching the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition. Significantly, despite Revenue’s participation before the High Court, neither was the disposal of the appeal Court’s notice nor communicated to the assessee. The fact that the assessee came to know of the order only upon an mail received on 20.12.2024 stands uncontroverted, as the affidavit disputing the factual Printed from counselvise.com 4.4 The appeal was filed within ten days of the assessee acquiring knowledge of the impugned order. Such prompt action reinforces the bona fides of the explanation. 4.5 In view of the foregoing discussion, and noting that the explanation furnished by the assessee demonstrates sufficient cause within the meaning of law, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Accordingly, we accept the explanation tendered and condone the delay 4.6 The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material brought on record. The factual matrix reveals that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring a total income of ₹7,62,78,710/ 12.03.2015 to ₹2,11,76,330/ and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to satisfactorily demonstrate the justification for receipt of a share premium of incorporated in Mauritius. 5.1 The Assessing Officer recorded that the financial statements of the investor-company were not furnished, nor was the assessee able Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd appeal was filed within ten days of the assessee acquiring knowledge of the impugned order. Such prompt action reinforces the bona fides of the explanation. In view of the foregoing discussion, and noting that the explanation furnished by the assessee remains unrebutted and demonstrates sufficient cause within the meaning of law, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Accordingly, we accept the explanation tendered condone the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material brought on record. The factual matrix reveals that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring a total 7,62,78,710/-, which was subsequently revised on 2,11,76,330/-. The return was selected for scrutiny, and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to satisfactorily demonstrate the justification for receipt of a share premium of ₹3,45,987.67 per share from an enti incorporated in Mauritius. he Assessing Officer recorded that the financial statements of company were not furnished, nor was the assessee able Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 8 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 appeal was filed within ten days of the assessee acquiring knowledge of the impugned order. Such prompt action reinforces In view of the foregoing discussion, and noting that the remains unrebutted and demonstrates sufficient cause within the meaning of law, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicalities must yield to substantial justice. Accordingly, we accept the explanation tendered The appeal is thus admitted and taken up for adjudication on We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material brought on record. The factual matrix reveals that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring a total , which was subsequently revised on . The return was selected for scrutiny, and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was unable to satisfactorily demonstrate the justification for receipt of a 3,45,987.67 per share from an entity he Assessing Officer recorded that the financial statements of company were not furnished, nor was the assessee able Printed from counselvise.com to substantiate, through any credible material, the basis of arriving at such an extraordin Flow (DCF) Method or otherwise. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness of the subscriber, and the genuineness of the tran section 68 of the Act, making an addition of the impugned premium amount. The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: “4.15 On the basis of the language used under section 68 and the various decisions of different High Courts and the apex court, the only conclusion which could be arrived at is: i. That the burden to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness has to be on the assessee. ii. If the cash credit is not satisfactorily explaine Officer is justified to treat it as income from \"undisclosed sources\". The assessee has to establish that the amount was actually given by the lender, iv. The genuineness and regularity in the maintenance of the account has to be taken int v. If the explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction created by section 68 can be invoked. 5.2 The learned CIT(A), upon a detailed examination, concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority noted that despite multiple opportunities, both during assessment and remand proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide any cogent explanation or verifiable evidence to demonstrate how a Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd to substantiate, through any credible material, the basis of arriving at such an extraordinary valuation under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method or otherwise. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness of the subscriber, and the genuineness of the transaction, and invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act, making an addition of the impugned premium The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 4.15 On the basis of the language used under section 68 and the ous decisions of different High Courts and the apex court, the only conclusion which could be arrived at is: i. That the burden to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness has to be on the assessee. ii. If the cash credit is not satisfactorily explained the Income Officer is justified to treat it as income from \"undisclosed sources\". The assessee has to establish that the amount was actually given by the lender, iv. The genuineness and regularity in the maintenance of the account has to be taken into consideration by the taxing authorities, . If the explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction created by section invoked.” The learned CIT(A), upon a detailed examination, concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority noted that despite multiple opportunities, both during assessment and remand proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide any cogent explanation or verifiable evidence to demonstrate how a Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 9 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 to substantiate, through any credible material, the basis of arriving ary valuation under the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method or otherwise. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness of the subscriber, and the saction, and invoked the provisions of section 68 of the Act, making an addition of the impugned premium The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer is 4.15 On the basis of the language used under section 68 and the ous decisions of different High Courts and the apex court, the i. That the burden to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness d the Income-tax Officer is justified to treat it as income from \"undisclosed sources\". The assessee has to establish that the amount was actually given iv. The genuineness and regularity in the maintenance of the o consideration by the taxing authorities, . If the explanation is not supported by any documentary or other evidence, then the deeming fiction created by section The learned CIT(A), upon a detailed examination, concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority noted that despite multiple opportunities, both during assessment and remand proceedings, the assessee was unable to provide any cogent explanation or verifiable evidence to demonstrate how a Printed from counselvise.com share of face value ₹10/ per share, particularly from an entity situated in a tax jurisdiction. The CIT(A) further observed that the valuation repor furnished by the assessee were unaccompanied by supporting material to establish the veracity of future cash and, therefore, did not inspire confidence. Relying on binding judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Bomba High Court in Major Metals Ltd. transaction lacking genuineness and being in the nature of introduction of unaccounted money through the colourable device of share premium. reproduced as under: 6. Finding of the case and decision: facts of the case, finding of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, observations made by the AO in the remand report, rejoinder of the record. From facts of the case it is noticed that in this case the return of income was e 30.09.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 7,62,78,710/ the assessee company had field r 12.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs. 2,11,76,330/ was selected for scrutiny through CASS, therefore, the notices u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued. On perusal of balance sheet the A issued the preference shares of face value of Rs.10/ 4186 shares, at premium of Rs. 34,987.67/ Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered office in Mauritius. Duri proceedings the AO doubted the genuineness of transactions related to the share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/ company, therefore, issued the detailed questionnaire, asking for relevant information, to asc receiving huge amount of premium i.e., Rs. 34,987.67/ that to from the company which is registered in Mauritius haven country. Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 10/- could command a premium of per share, particularly from an entity situated in a tax jurisdiction. The CIT(A) further observed that the valuation repor furnished by the assessee were unaccompanied by supporting material to establish the veracity of future cash-flow projections and, therefore, did not inspire confidence. Relying on binding judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Bomba Major Metals Ltd., the CIT(A) upheld the addition as a transaction lacking genuineness and being in the nature of introduction of unaccounted money through the colourable device of share premium. The relevant observations of ld CIT(A) are as under: Finding of the case and decision:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case, finding of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, observations made by the AO in the remand report, rejoinder of the appellant and material placed on record. From facts of the case it is noticed that in this case the return of income was e-filed by the assessee company on 30.09.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 7,62,78,710/ the assessee company had field revised return of income on 12.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs. 2,11,76,330/ was selected for scrutiny through CASS, therefore, the notices u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued. On perusal of balance sheet the AO noticed that t he appellant had issued the preference shares of face value of Rs.10/ 4186 shares, at premium of Rs. 34,987.67/- per share, to M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered office in Mauritius. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO doubted the genuineness of transactions related to the share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/-, received from the above company, therefore, issued the detailed questionnaire, asking for relevant information, to ascertain the basis of valuation of share, for receiving huge amount of premium i.e., Rs. 34,987.67/ that to from the company which is registered in Mauritius haven country. Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 10 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 could command a premium of ₹34,987.67 per share, particularly from an entity situated in a tax-haven jurisdiction. The CIT(A) further observed that the valuation reports furnished by the assessee were unaccompanied by supporting flow projections and, therefore, did not inspire confidence. Relying on binding judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay , the CIT(A) upheld the addition as a transaction lacking genuineness and being in the nature of introduction of unaccounted money through the colourable device The relevant observations of ld CIT(A) are I have carefully considered the facts of the case, finding of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, observations made by the AO in the appellant and material placed on record. From facts of the case it is noticed that in this case the filed by the assessee company on 30.09.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 7,62,78,710/-. Thereafter evised return of income on 12.03.2015, declaring total income of Rs. 2,11,76,330/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS, therefore, the notices u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) along with detailed questionnaires were issued. On O noticed that t he appellant had issued the preference shares of face value of Rs.10/- numbering per share, to M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its ng the course of assessment proceedings the AO doubted the genuineness of transactions related , received from the above company, therefore, issued the detailed questionnaire, asking for ertain the basis of valuation of share, for receiving huge amount of premium i.e., Rs. 34,987.67/- per share, that to from the company which is registered in Mauritius-i.e. tax Printed from counselvise.com 7.1 In compliance the appellant could not demonstrate as how com the share, having face value of Rs. 10/ 34,987.67/- per share, that to from the company which is registered in Mauritius- opportunity of being heard by the AO during assessment remand proceeding, to justify the genuineness of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141/ in Mauritius. The appellant however, could not bring any credible material evidence and logical justification on AO or during appellate proceeding, by which one can understand the logic/ basis to arrive at the premium of Rs. 34,987.67/ share. The Appellant had placed reliance on rulings of various Hon'ble Courts, whose facts and circumstan matching with the fact of the case under consideration. 7.2 It is also to be noted that the appellant had arranged the above transaction from entity which is based in the Mauritius, itself indicate the fact that the appellant had given premium to this transaction, to justify the introduction of its own unaccounted amount of Rs. 14,99,57,141/ premium money. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant merely stated that report based on DCF method and also a valuation statement based on PECV method. The value as per DCF method was Rs. 30,035 per share while the value as per PECV method was Rs. 36,450 per share. The learned DCIT without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Valuation as per DCF method takes into account the future cash flows based on projections of future revenues and profit of the business. In determining the value as per DCF method, the valuer ha considered future revenue and profit for the years 2013 to 2016. It is submitted that the projection of future revenue and o profit was done on reasonable and scientific basis........ 7.3 The above contention of the appellant is based on his own logic and method of valuation to arrive at above values i.e. by DCF method at Rs. 30,035 and as per PECV method Rs. 36,450 per share, which was not accepted by the AO in the absence of any credible material evidence and logical justification on record. In view of these facts it is held that the entire amount of share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/ investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered office in Mauritius, is dubious in nature and design to introduce its own unaccou money under the garb of share premium, in its books of account, from the tax heaven country, which can't be subjected to any verification/cross check. Considering these facts the AO held that the entire amount of share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/ Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 7.1 In compliance the appellant could not demonstrate as how com the share, having face value of Rs. 10/-, could fetch premium of Rs. per share, that to from the company which is registered tax haven country. The appellant was given ample opportunity of being heard by the AO during assessment remand proceeding, to justify the genuineness of share premium of Rs. 14,99,57,141/-, received from the company which is registered in Mauritius. The appellant however, could not bring any credible material evidence and logical justification on record, either before AO or during appellate proceeding, by which one can understand the logic/ basis to arrive at the premium of Rs. 34,987.67/ share. The Appellant had placed reliance on rulings of various Hon'ble Courts, whose facts and circumstances are not exactly matching with the fact of the case under consideration. 7.2 It is also to be noted that the appellant had arranged the above transaction from entity which is based in the Mauritius, itself indicate the fact that the appellant had given the color of share premium to this transaction, to justify the introduction of its own unaccounted amount of Rs. 14,99,57,141/-, under the garb of share premium money. During the course of appellate proceedings the appellant merely stated that- \" the appellant had filed valuation report based on DCF method and also a valuation statement based on PECV method. The value as per DCF method was Rs. 30,035 per share while the value as per PECV method was Rs. 36,450 per share. The learned DCIT has chosen to ignore them all together without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Valuation as per DCF method takes into account the future cash flows based on projections of future revenues and profit of the business. In determining the value as per DCF method, the valuer ha considered future revenue and profit for the years 2013 to 2016. It is submitted that the projection of future revenue and o profit was done on reasonable and scientific basis........ 7.3 The above contention of the appellant is based on his own logic d method of valuation to arrive at above values i.e. by DCF method at Rs. 30,035 and as per PECV method Rs. 36,450 per share, which was not accepted by the AO in the absence of any credible material evidence and logical justification on record. In view these facts it is held that the entire amount of share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/-, received from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered office in Mauritius, is dubious in nature and design to introduce its own unaccou money under the garb of share premium, in its books of account, from the tax heaven country, which can't be subjected to any verification/cross check. Considering these facts the AO held that the entire amount of share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/ Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 11 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 7.1 In compliance the appellant could not demonstrate as how come , could fetch premium of Rs. per share, that to from the company which is registered tax haven country. The appellant was given ample opportunity of being heard by the AO during assessment as well as remand proceeding, to justify the genuineness of share premium of , received from the company which is registered in Mauritius. The appellant however, could not bring any credible record, either before AO or during appellate proceeding, by which one can understand the logic/ basis to arrive at the premium of Rs. 34,987.67/- per share. The Appellant had placed reliance on rulings of various ces are not exactly matching with the fact of the case under consideration. 7.2 It is also to be noted that the appellant had arranged the above transaction from entity which is based in the Mauritius, itself the color of share premium to this transaction, to justify the introduction of its own , under the garb of share premium money. During the course of appellate proceedings the lant had filed valuation report based on DCF method and also a valuation statement based on PECV method. The value as per DCF method was Rs. 30,035 per share while the value as per PECV method was Rs. 36,450 per e them all together without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Valuation as per DCF method takes into account the future cash flows based on projections of future revenues and profit of the business. In determining the value as per DCF method, the valuer has considered future revenue and profit for the years 2013 to 2016. It is submitted that the projection of future revenue and o profit was 7.3 The above contention of the appellant is based on his own logic d method of valuation to arrive at above values i.e. by DCF method at Rs. 30,035 and as per PECV method Rs. 36,450 per share, which was not accepted by the AO in the absence of any credible material evidence and logical justification on record. In view these facts it is held that the entire amount of share premium of , received from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered office in Mauritius, is dubious in nature and design to introduce its own unaccounted money under the garb of share premium, in its books of account, from the tax heaven country, which can't be subjected to any verification/cross check. Considering these facts the AO held that the entire amount of share premium of Rs.14,99,57,141/-, received Printed from counselvise.com from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, as shame transaction and therefore added to the income of the appellant, by giving detailed findings in the assessment order. In this regard, the AO had placed the reliance on rulings in the followings cases: 7.4 In the case of M/s Sreelekha Banerji vs CIT[49 ITR 1129 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the addition for unexplained cash credit is justified simply if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offe found to be not satisfactory by the assessing officer. On identical facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [207 Taxmann.com 185], upheld the addition of entire amount of share capital, o issued at unjustifiable higher amount of premium and accordingly held that the entire transaction is not genuine. The SLP filed against this decision before the Supreme Court also stands dismissed. Since the appellant is b that this decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [207 Taxmann.com 185] is binding on the assessing officer and to be followed in deciding such issues. 7.5 Keeping in mind the facts stated here in above, in my considered opinion the entire amount of share application money/share premium/share capital of Rs.14,99,57,141/ received from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered design to introduce its own unaccounted money under the garb of share premium, in its books of account, from the tax heaven country- which can't be subjected to any verification/cross therefore, not tena upheld. All the grounds of appeal, are decided 5.3 Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income admitting additional evidence as under: S. No. Particulars I. Audited Financial Statements of the Appellant Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, as shame transaction and therefore added to the income of the appellant, by giving detailed findings in the assessment order. In this regard, the AO had placed the reliance on rulings in the followings cases:- 7.4 In the case of M/s Sreelekha Banerji vs CIT[49 ITR 1129 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the addition for unexplained cash credit is justified simply if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory by the assessing officer. On identical facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [207 Taxmann.com 185], upheld the addition of entire amount of share capital, on the ground that the shares were issued at unjustifiable higher amount of premium and accordingly held that the entire transaction is not genuine. The SLP filed against this decision before the Supreme Court also stands dismissed. Since the appellant is based in the Bombay, therefore, the AO further held that this decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [207 Taxmann.com 185] is binding on the assessing officer and to be followed in deciding such issues. eping in mind the facts stated here in above, in my considered opinion the entire amount of share application money/share premium/share capital of Rs.14,99,57,141/ received from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, having its registered office in Mauritius, is dubious in nature and design to introduce its own unaccounted money under the garb of share premium, in its books of account, from the tax heaven which can't be subjected to any verification/cross therefore, not tenable and addition made by the AO is liable to be upheld. All the grounds of appeal, are decided accordingly. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for additional evidence as under: ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PAPERBOOK INDEX Particulars Page No. Audited Financial Statements of the Appellant Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 12 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, as shame transaction and therefore added to the income of the appellant, by giving detailed findings in the assessment order. In this regard, the AO had placed the reliance on rulings in the 7.4 In the case of M/s Sreelekha Banerji vs CIT[49 ITR 1129 (SC)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the addition for unexplained cash credit is justified simply if the assessee fails to red by the assessee is found to be not satisfactory by the assessing officer. On identical facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [207 Taxmann.com 185], upheld the addition of n the ground that the shares were issued at unjustifiable higher amount of premium and accordingly held that the entire transaction is not genuine. The SLP filed against this decision before the Supreme Court also stands dismissed. Since ased in the Bombay, therefore, the AO further held that this decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in case of Major Metals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [207 Taxmann.com 185] is binding on the assessing officer and to be followed in deciding such issues. eping in mind the facts stated here in above, in my considered opinion the entire amount of share application money/share premium/share capital of Rs.14,99,57,141/-, received from M/s Matrix Partners India investment Holdings II LLC, office in Mauritius, is dubious in nature and design to introduce its own unaccounted money under the garb of share premium, in its books of account, from the tax heaven which can't be subjected to any verification/cross check, ble and addition made by the AO is liable to be accordingly.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee filed an application tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for Page No. Printed from counselvise.com 1. Audited Financial Statements for FY 2012 2. Audited Financial Statements for FY 2013 3. 3- Audited Financial Statements for FY 2014 4. 4' Audited Financial Statements for FY 2015 5. Valuation report dated 28 the independent valuer II. Overview of DeltaZen4 7 A dvisors LLP (formerly “Matrix 6. Information about firm background, team members and investment focus 7. AIF related regulatory details of the firm as mentioned on the Firm’s website 8. Media Coverage for Rebranding of “Matrix Partners” as “Z47” 9. Registration of “Matrix Partners” with SEBI 10. Finn Portfolio and Spotlight Investments IV.Media Coverage of Z47’s Investment in Shot Formats 11. “Matrix provides Series A for Shot Formats Digital Works” on 12. “Digital Entertainment Platform Biscoot Receives Series A Funding from Matrix Partners” on www.vccircle.com 5.4 The evidence placed comprises, inter alia, audited financial statements for subsequent years as well as the valuation report dated 28.09.2012, which were stated to be germane to the justification of the premium and to the DCF projections forming the substratum of valuation. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel pressed for admission of additional evidence only with respect to items 1 to 5 of the Paper Book, submitting that the actual financial performance in subsequent years exceeded the project Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd Audited Financial Statements for FY 2012-13 1 Audited Financial Statements for FY 2013-14 33 Audited Financial Statements for FY 2014-15 63 Audited Financial Statements for FY 2015-16 84 Valuation report dated 28th September 2012 issued by the independent valuer 124 Overview of DeltaZen4 7 A dvisors LLP (formerly “Matrix Partners ”) Information about firm background, team members and investment focus 129 AIF related regulatory details of the firm as mentioned on the Firm’s website 142 Media Coverage for Rebranding of “Matrix Partners” as “Z47” (DeltaZen47 Advisors LLP) in India. 144 Registration of “Matrix Partners” with SEBI 153 Ill Portfolio collection of“Z47” Finn Portfolio and Spotlight Investments 155 IV.Media Coverage of Z47’s Investment in Shot Formats “Matrix provides Series A for Shot Formats Digital Works” on www.avej.com 178 “Digital Entertainment Platform Biscoot Receives Series A Funding from Matrix Partners” on www.vccircle.com 179 The evidence placed comprises, inter alia, audited financial statements for subsequent years as well as the valuation report dated 28.09.2012, which were stated to be germane to the justification of the premium and to the DCF projections forming the atum of valuation. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel pressed for admission of additional evidence only with respect to items 1 to 5 of the Paper Book, submitting that the actual financial performance in subsequent years exceeded the project Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 13 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 1-32 33-62 63-83 84- 123 124- 128 Partners 129-141 142- 143 144- 152 153-154 155-177 IV.Media Coverage of Z47’s Investment in Shot Formats 178 179- 182 The evidence placed comprises, inter alia, audited financial statements for subsequent years as well as the valuation report dated 28.09.2012, which were stated to be germane to the justification of the premium and to the DCF projections forming the atum of valuation. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel pressed for admission of additional evidence only with respect to items 1 to 5 of the Paper Book, submitting that the actual financial performance in subsequent years exceeded the projected Printed from counselvise.com revenue, and therefore the valuation at the relevant time was neither fanciful nor excessive. 5.5 In our considered view, the additional evidence now sought to be introduced is material and bears directly upon the core issue namely, the justification of share premium. The evidence was not considered by the lower authorities and, in our view, is essential for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy. The principles governing admission of additional evidence crucial to do substantial justice and could not earlier be produced for bona fide reasons, the Tribunal would be justified in admitting the same. 5.6 Accordingly, in the interests of justice and to ensure a complete and proper examination of the matter, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine the additional evidence submitted, undertake such inquiries as h consider necessary, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity to present its case, and any material proposed to be used against it shall be duly confronted to ensure complia principles of natural justice. In consequence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd revenue, and therefore the valuation at the relevant time was neither fanciful nor excessive. In our considered view, the additional evidence now sought to be introduced is material and bears directly upon the core issue namely, the justification of the valuation underlying the impugned share premium. The evidence was not considered by the lower authorities and, in our view, is essential for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy. The principles governing admission of additional evidence are well settled: where such evidence is crucial to do substantial justice and could not earlier be produced for bona fide reasons, the Tribunal would be justified in admitting Accordingly, in the interests of justice and to ensure a e and proper examination of the matter, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine the additional evidence submitted, undertake such inquiries as h consider necessary, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity to present its case, and any material proposed to be used against it shall be duly confronted to ensure complia principles of natural justice. In consequence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 14 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 revenue, and therefore the valuation at the relevant time was In our considered view, the additional evidence now sought to be introduced is material and bears directly upon the core issue— the valuation underlying the impugned share premium. The evidence was not considered by the lower authorities and, in our view, is essential for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy. The principles governing admission are well settled: where such evidence is crucial to do substantial justice and could not earlier be produced for bona fide reasons, the Tribunal would be justified in admitting Accordingly, in the interests of justice and to ensure a e and proper examination of the matter, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restore the entire issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine the additional evidence submitted, undertake such inquiries as he may consider necessary, and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity to present its case, and any material proposed to be used against it shall be duly confronted to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice. In consequence, the grounds raised by Printed from counselvise.com 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/11/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ounced in the open Court on 25/ Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shot Formats Digital Productions Pvt. Ltd 15 ITA No. 6879/MUM/2024 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /11/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "