9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 89 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of unexplained investment Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting self-serving documents not corroborated by cross examination or produced before the AO - Held that - Following the decision in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II Versus KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT. LTD. 2012 (11) TMI 590 - DELHI HIGH COURT - with the amendment to the Act, and insertion of Section 50-C, a presumption can be drawn that property was sold for a higher value for determining capital gains, in case of the valuation indicated by the assessee to the stamp authorities, being higher than the consideration disclosed in the sale deed or conveyancing instrument - the express provision of Section 50-C enabling the revenue to treat the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp duty, ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding that there was undervaluation, in the acquisition of immovable property. If Parliamentary intention was to enable such a finding, a provision akin to Section 50-C would have been included in the statute book, to assess income on the basis of a similar fiction in the case of the assessee who acquires such an asset - the declaration of a higher cost for acquisition for stamp duty might be the starting point for an inquiry in that regard that inquiry might extend to analyzing sale or transfer deeds executed in respect of similar or neighbouring properties, contemporaneously at the time of the transaction - the finding cannot start and conclude with the fact that such stamp duty value or basis is higher than the consideration mentioned in the deed - The compulsion for such higher value, is the mandate of the Stamp Act, and provisions which levy stamp duty at pre-determined or notified dates - the order of the CIT(A) is upheld Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment. 2. Acceptance of self-serving documents not corroborated by cross-examination or produced before the Assessing Officer (AO). 3. Setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and restoring the matter back to the AO for re-examination of fresh evidence. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 42,19,375/- on account of unexplained investment by the CIT(A). The AO had treated this amount as unaccounted investment in property, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, which was contested by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Khoobsurat Resorts P Ltd. and the ITAT, Delhi Bench in ITO vs. Smt. Himali Bansal. The Tribunal noted that Section 50-C of the Act presumes higher value for determining capital gains based on the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority, but this presumption applies only to sellers, not purchasers. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no contrary material evidence brought by the AO to substantiate that the assessee paid more than the amount mentioned in the sale deed. Issue 2: Acceptance of Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated by Cross-Examination or Produced Before the AO The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in accepting self-serving documents that were not corroborated by cross-examination or produced before the AO. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not conducted any inquiry or brought any evidence to show that the assessee paid any extra consideration over and above the amount stated in the sale deed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly observed that in case of any doubt, the AO should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer for valuation of the property. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO did not bring any contrary or corroborative evidence on record. Issue 3: Setting Aside the Order of the CIT(A) and Restoring the Matter Back to the AO for Re-Examination of Fresh Evidence The Revenue sought to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter back to the AO to re-examine fresh evidence in a holistic manner and as per law. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT(A)'s decision was supported by precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KP Varghese vs. ITO, which emphasized that the burden of proof for understatement of consideration lies with the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had not provided any evidence to substantiate the claim of extra consideration paid by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided the issue against the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s order. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals filed by the Revenue, finding that the issues were covered in favor of the assessee by the judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of unexplained investment and found no merit in the Revenue's arguments regarding the acceptance of self-serving documents and the need for re-examination of fresh evidence.
|
