2016 (7) TMI 1509 - AT - Income Tax

Property sold below market price held in stock in trade - section 50C applicability - Difference between the Circle Rate and Contract Value of the flat - assessee had sold the ground floor property after six months of the sale of the first floor property in the same building at a price which was 25% less than the price at which the first floor property was sold six months before - Taking clue from the valuation adopted by stamp valuation authorities AO made addition after rejecting the books of a/c u/s 145 - HELD THAT - In the relevant assessment year the provisions of section 50C were not applicable in case a property was held as stock-in-trade, because section 43CA has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 1.4.2014. The AO has not pointed out any defect in the books of account and has merely rejected the books of account on the basis of lower sale consideration being received for the ground floor property as compared to first floor property. This is not permissible in law, because there has to be some concrete evidence to come to the conclusion that assessee has not declared his full sale consideration. Reliance placed by ld. counsel for the assessee on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Raman & Co. 1967 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT clearly support the assessee s contention. - decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Addition of difference between Circle Rate and Contract Value of property for assessment year 2010-11.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue: Addition of difference between Circle Rate and Contract Value

- The appellant's appeal was against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, regarding the addition of ?12,40,000 being the disparity between the Circle Rate and Contract Value of a flat sold by the assessee.

2. Facts of the Case:

- The assessee, engaged in the business as a builder, developer, and civil contractor, reported the sale of properties totaling ?3,10,51,500. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed discrepancies in the sale prices of properties and initiated proceedings.

3. AO's Findings and Addition:

- The AO, after considering the details provided by the assessee, concluded that the property was sold below market rate based on the Circle Rate. The AO made an addition of ?12,40,000 after rejecting the books of accounts under section 145.

4. Appellant's Arguments:

- The appellant contended that as a developer, the ground floor property was sold at a lower price due to market conditions to alleviate the burden of bank loans. The appellant relied on specific judgments to support their stance.

5. Decision and Analysis:

- The Tribunal found that the provisions of section 50C were not applicable as the property was held as stock-in-trade. The rejection of books solely based on lower sale consideration without concrete evidence was deemed impermissible. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to challenge declared sale consideration.

6. Conclusion:

- The Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence to challenge the declared sale consideration and rejecting the rejection of books solely based on price differences. The decision emphasized the need for a factual basis to support additions in such cases.

This detailed analysis provides an overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.