2017 (12) TMI 1626 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - calculation of LTCG - adoption of sale consideration - proof of agreement of sale as seized in search - Held that - Assessing Officer had framed the assessment mainly stating that the agreement for sale was seized and also placing reliance on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) from Shri Babu John. As mentioned earlier, there is no agreement of sale that was sized nor was the statement of Shri Babu John indicating that the assessee was paid more than the declared value in sale deed. Therefore, we have to conclude the adoption of sale consideration at ₹ 99.90 lakh is not supported by any corroborative evidences / materials. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the sale consideration as disclosed in document No.3424/07 dated 24.04.2008 viz., ₹ 18.30 lakh instead of ₹ 99.90 lakh for the purpose of calculating long term capital gains. It is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act
- Assessment on a defunct company
- Confirmation of order by first Appellate Authority
- Calculation of long term capital gains based on seized documents

Analysis:

1. Validity of notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant challenged the notice issued under section 153C, contending that the seized documents did not belong to them. The Assessing Officer relied on SJ-III, which was claimed to be an imaginary sale agreement. The appellant argued that the assessment based on loose papers not belonging to them was erroneous. The Tribunal found that the seized material did not conclusively prove the higher sale value, leading to the direction to adopt the actual sale consideration disclosed in the document for calculating long term capital gains.

2. Assessment on a defunct company:
The appellant, being a defunct company, argued that the assessment against a non-existent entity was unlawful. The Registrar of Companies had struck off the company's name, making it legally invalid to assess a dissolved entity. The Tribunal agreed that assessing a defunct company was impermissible under the law, citing precedents and directing the Assessing Officer to consider the actual sale consideration for calculating capital gains.

3. Confirmation of order by first Appellate Authority:
The appellant contested the first Appellate Authority's confirmation of the Assessing Officer's order, claiming that the Authority did not consider crucial aspects of the case. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting the lack of concrete evidence supporting the higher sale value assessed by the authorities.

4. Calculation of long term capital gains based on seized documents:
The Assessing Officer calculated long term capital gains using seized documents indicating a higher sale value than disclosed. The appellant argued that the documents were misinterpreted and lacked proper verification. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing the absence of corroborative evidence to support the revised sale value, ultimately directing the adoption of the disclosed sale consideration for computing capital gains.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to consider the actual sale consideration disclosed in the document for calculating long term capital gains, as the seized documents did not conclusively prove the higher value. The assessment on a defunct company was deemed invalid, and the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence in tax assessments.