Held that for the purpose of attracting the rigours of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the crucial date is the date of receipt of any property being shares of the amalgamated companies. Undoubtedly, the assessee received the property on account of approval of the scheme of amalgamation in the year under consideration and therefore, the income was required to be charged in the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer had rightly charged the income under section 56(2)(viia) of the Act. The principle that there has to be a substantive addition before a protective addition can take place is not universally applicable and is required to be applied with caution and on case to case basis. Admittedly no proceedings were pending at the time of passing of the assessment order dated December 31, 2016 and therefore it was not possible to make the addition on substantive basis for the AY. 2012-13. Further, there was a time-limit provided under the Act for the completion of assessment under section 143(3) for the AY. 2014-15 and the assessment proceedings for the AY. 2014-15, on the basis of protective addition, could not be put in abeyance till the additions were made on substantive basis for the AY. 2012-13. The assessee did not exist in the AY. 2012-13 and no addition could have been made for the AY. 2012-13 as it was not in existence in that AY.. The assessee’s contention that the substantive addition should precede the protective addition was not tenable. Moreover since the substantive additions had later been dropped for the AY. 2012-13, the protective addition made in the AY. 2014-15 was required to be converted into a substantive addition. Relied,Lalji Haridas v. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC). Held that the scheme of amalgamation provided that pursuant to the order of the High Court or any other appropriate authority sanctioning the scheme the assets be transferred and were deemed to be transferred to and vested in the transferee company. The shares of the amalgamating companies with the underlying assets (including quoted and unquoted shares, preferential shares, etc.) were received in terms of the transfer scheme by the amalgamated company. The amalgamated company had not paid any fair market value of the assets received by it in the form of shares to the amalgamating companies. The requirement under the provision is the receipt of any property being shares of a company without or inadequate consideration which is less than the fair market value. Admittedly, the assessee was a company in which public were not substantially interested and had received “any property” being shares of a company during the previous year relevant to the AY. below the fair market value. Due to the scheme of amalgamation, the assessee received the shares of the amalgamating companies with underlying properties including the shares of various companies and in consideration thereof, had allotted the number of shares at face value of Rs. 10 to various shareholders of the eleven amalgamating companies. Thus, not only had the transfer of the eleven amalgamating companies taken place but also the transfer of unlisted, listed shares and preferential shares below the market rate. In fact, as mentioned in the scheme of amalgamation, the transfer of shares preceded the receipt of shares by the transferee company. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect and the view of the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act was in accordance with the law.(AY. 2013-14)