9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 352 - AT - Income TaxValidity of invoking provisions of Section 50C entire amount of consideration invested in bonds in view of provisions of section 54EC - sale consideration is low in comparison to value adopted for imposing stamp duty Held that - The meaning of full value of consideration in Explanation to section 54F(1) will not be governed by meaning of word of full value of consideration as mentioned in Section 50C. The value adopted for stamp duty is to be considered as full value of consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains u/s 48 only. In instant case, entire amount of sale consideration has been invested in Bonds therefore, provisions of section 50C cannot be invoked as held in case of Gyan Chand Batra(2010 - TMI - 204293 - ITAT JAIPUR). Accordingly the addition made is deleted Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Replacement of Actual Sales Consideration by applying provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act. 2. Denial of exemption under section 54EC in respect of long-term capital gains. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Replacement of Actual Sales Consideration by applying provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act: The assessee sold property for Rs. 40 lacs on 12.01.2006, while the value adopted by the Sub Registrar for stamp duty purposes was Rs. 74,58,880/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked section 50C of the I.T. Act, which deems the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as the full value of consideration if it is higher than the actual sales consideration. The AO revalued the capital gain based on the value determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) at Rs. 67,12,600/-. After reducing the indexed cost of Rs. 13,26,990/-, the AO computed the long-term capital gain at Rs. 53,85,610/-. The CIT (A) confirmed this action. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been addressed in prior cases, specifically Gyan Chand Batra v. ITO and Gouli Mahadevappa v. ITO. In these cases, it was held that the deeming fiction of section 50C applies only for the purpose of section 48 and not for other provisions like section 54F. The Tribunal observed that section 50C provides a deeming provision for considering the full value of consideration as the value adopted for stamp duty, which is applicable only for section 48. The natural meaning of "full value of consideration" refers to the consideration specified in the sale deed, as supported by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Smt. Nilofer I Singh. 2. Denial of exemption under section 54EC in respect of long-term capital gains: The Tribunal examined whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54EC, which allows for exemption from capital gains if the entire sale consideration is invested in specified bonds. The Tribunal found that the assessee had invested the entire sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- in bonds, thus qualifying for exemption under section 54EC. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Gyan Chand Batra, where it was held that the deeming fiction in section 50C does not affect the applicability of section 54F, which provides for exemption based on the actual sale consideration invested in a new asset or bonds. The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT (A) were not justified in invoking section 50C for the purpose of denying exemption under section 54EC. Since the entire sale consideration was invested in bonds, the provisions of section 50C were deemed not applicable in this context. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the exemption under section 54EC and deleting the addition made by the lower authorities. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the provisions of section 50C are applicable only for the purpose of section 48 and not for denying exemption under section 54EC. The assessee was entitled to exemption as the entire sale consideration was invested in bonds. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT (A) was deleted.
|
