2013 (2) TMI 575 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s 69 Assessee purchased the properties through registered sale deeds - Additional stamp duty was imposed upon the assessee as per the rate prescribed by Jantri - Stamp Valuation Authority adopted such valuation as per the Jantri which is notional value for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable As per AO assessee had paid more consideration as against in sale deeds Held that - No material is brought on record to prove that the assessee had invested more than what had been shown in the sale deeds The Stamp Valuation Authority, however, valued the lands higher than the sale consideration indicated in the sale-deeds Assessee paid up additional stamp duty on such valuation. This by itself would not mean that the assessee made any unexplained investment - Additional stamp duty paid to avoid litigation and to get clear title of the property Section 50C of the Act would cover the instances of capital gain upon sale of immovable property by the sellers - provisions of section 50C of the IT Act are not applicable in the hands of the purchaser Against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the addition of unexplained investment in the purchase of land at Piplod should be deleted.
2. Whether the interpretation of section 50C of the Income Tax Act is limited to the calculation of capital gain only.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax without providing relevant reasons.

Issue 1:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs.25,58,810 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act regarding unexplained investment in land purchase. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that section 50C does not apply to purchasers and observed that the Stamp Valuation Authority's valuation does not necessarily indicate the actual purchase price. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the assumption that the assessee paid more than the recorded consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and deleted the additions, concluding that there was no factual basis to support the Revenue's case.

Issue 2:
Regarding the interpretation of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal in a similar case noted that the section covers instances of capital gain upon the sale of immovable property by sellers, not purchasers. The Tribunal emphasized that additional stamp duty paid does not automatically imply unexplained investment, as it may be done to avoid litigation and secure clear property title. The Tribunal highlighted that the Stamp Valuation Authority's rates do not necessarily reflect the actual purchase price, and without evidence beyond the valuation based on Jantri rates, no additional payment beyond the sale consideration was proven. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Tax Appeal, affirming that section 50C does not apply to purchasers.

Issue 3:
In addressing the alleged error by the Tribunal in reversing the Commissioner of Income Tax's order without providing relevant reasons, the High Court found that the Tribunal did not commit any error in its decision. The High Court referenced a previous case where a similar issue was considered, and it was concluded that the Tribunal had not erred in its judgment. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal's decision was sound, emphasizing that the Stamp Valuation Authority's rates alone do not establish the actual purchase price, and additional stamp duty payment does not indicate unexplained investment. As a result, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Tax Appeal.

In summary, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of unexplained investment in land purchase, clarified the limited scope of section 50C for calculating capital gain, and found no error in the Tribunal's reversal of the Commissioner's order without providing detailed reasons.