1986 (12) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding capital gains tax assessment.
2. Requirement of prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for estimating fair market value under section 52(2).

Analysis:
The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment of capital gains tax for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The main issue was whether the assessment was void due to the lack of prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner before estimating the fair market value under section 52(2) of the Act. The court reframed the question to determine the applicability of section 52(2) based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

In the case, the Income-tax Officer estimated fair market values of properties sold by the assessee for the two relevant years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessments, citing the lack of prior approval for fair market value estimation as required by section 52(2). The assessee contended that this failure rendered the assessments invalid and should have led to their annulment rather than a mere setting aside for reassessment. However, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision.

The court, considering settled law and the Supreme Court's decision in K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, emphasized that section 52(2) cannot be applied if there is no understatement of sale price in the deeds. The Revenue must prove understatement to estimate fair market value under this provision. As there was no allegation of understatement in the present case, the court concluded that section 52(2) did not apply, making the prior approval requirement irrelevant.

Therefore, the court reframed the question to determine the applicability of section 52(2) based on the facts. It answered the reframed question in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment clarified that the prior approval requirement did not arise in the absence of understatement in the sale deeds, aligning with the principles established by previous decisions and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant provisions.