AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-7 order no. dated 19.09.2020 having DIN & Order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2020-21/102800811, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
This assessee’s appeal raises the following the substantive grounds:
1.That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 56.90 crores and Rs 112.38 crores incurred by the appellant during the year under consideration from sale of shares of M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd & M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd respectively.
2.That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding / observing that:
(a)Transactions for purchase and sale of shares of M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. and M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd is a sham / colourable transaction;
(b)Appellant has not been able to substantiate purchase price of shares.
(c)Appellant has not given justification / commercial expediency for making transactions of purchase and sale.
3.That on facts and in law CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that:
(i)Shares of M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. and M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd were sold to unrelated concerns.
(ii)Purchase Price of shares was at Fair Market Value (FMV) and that this is dully endorsed by the Valuation Reports prepared by an independent expert appointed by M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. and M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
(iii)AO has wrongly doubted the Valuation Reports.
(iv)Provisions of Rule 11U are not applicable to the facts of present case.
(v)FMV of shares of M/s TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. @ Rs 60 per share and M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd @ Rs 150 per share has been accepted u/s 56(2)(viib)
(v)During the year under consideration, appellant had also purchased shares of M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd @ Rs 150 per share from unrelated concerns.
4.That on facts and in law the order passed by the (Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (herein above referred to as the "CIT(A)") is bad in law and void ab initio to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.
4.1That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in passing the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice i.e. by not providing an opportunity of being heard in person as mandated by provisions of section 250(1).
5.That on facts and in law order dated 31st December, 2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(2), New Delhi (herein above referred to as the "AO"} is bad in law and void ab initio.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.
Learned counsel representing the assessee submits at the outset during the course of hearing that he could not plead and prove all the relevant facts to justify his share premium issued on account of fact that the CIT(A) had taken up its lower appeal for adjudication during peak Covid-19 pandemic period i.e. in the year 2020 which finally culminated in the impugned order passed on 19.09.2020. The Revenue is equally fair in not disputing the fact that the learned CIT(A) has recorded the assessee’s business in the lower appeal order memo as “none due to Covid-19 situation”. That being the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing at its risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.