2018 (7) TMI 2218 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of capital gain - Determination of value as per 50C - disallowing the FMV as on 01- 04-1081 and estimating the FMV - as argued there was no reference regarding the valuation of the property by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur to any of the higher authorities - HELD THAT - In this case, we find that the assessee has sold the part of the agricultural land for ₹ 10.00 lacs which was the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur. In assessee's case, there was no reference regarding the valuation of the property by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur to any of the higher authorities. The addition is based on the Collector (Stamps) valuation in the case of three bothers of the assessee. In assessee's case the sale consideration of ₹ 10 lacs was accepted by Sub-Registrar -IV, Jaipur. Thus there was no enhancement in assessee's case rather there is no reference to the Collector (Stamps) in assessee's case. It is a settled position of law that Section 50C is a deeming provision and such provisions cannot be invoked when there was no difference in sale consideration declared and value adopted by Registrar or where no reference for valuating full value of consideration of property to Collector (Stamps). It is pertinent to mention that assessee had sold the land on prevailing DLC rate and Sub-Registrar-IV, Jaipur has adopted the same while registering the documents. Therefore, the addition made invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act is not as per law. In this view of the matter, the addition made is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation of proceedings under Section 147.
2. Disallowance and estimation of Fair Market Value (FMV) as on 01-04-1981.
3. Rejection of deduction claimed under Section 54F.
4. Neglecting the valuation report of the registered valuer regarding FMV as on 01-05-2006.
5. Treatment of the value under Section 50C.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 147:
The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in initiating proceedings under Section 147, making them illegal and void. The AO initiated these proceedings based on information received from ADIT (Investigation), Jaipur, and issued a notice under Section 148 on 20.03.2013. The notice was served through registered post and affixture, but the appellant did not file any return of income in response.

2. Disallowance and Estimation of FMV as on 01-04-1981:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the FMV as on 01-04-1981 and estimating it at ?50,000/-. The appellant submitted a registered valuer report dated 11.01.2016, stating the FMV of the land as on 01.04.1981 at ?75,000/- per bigha. However, the CIT(A) found no basis for this valuation and, thus, estimated the FMV at ?50,000/- per bigha, directing the AO to allow this along with indexation benefits while computing long-term capital gains.

3. Rejection of Deduction Claimed under Section 54F:
The appellant claimed a deduction under Section 54F, which the CIT(A) rejected due to contradictions in the valuation report dated 11.01.2016 and lack of evidence for the construction of the house property within the stipulated time frame. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant had received only ?5 lakh in cash and the remaining ?5 lakh through a cheque not credited to the bank account, thus questioning the investment in the construction of the house property.

4. Neglecting the Valuation Report of the Registered Valuer Regarding FMV as on 01-05-2006:
The appellant argued that the AO and CIT(A) neglected the valuation report of the registered valuer regarding FMV as on 01-05-2006. The CIT(A) noted that the report was prepared almost ten years after the sale and had no evidentiary value due to contradictions highlighted by the AO.

5. Treatment of the Value under Section 50C:
The appellant contended that the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the value under Section 50C as ?81,58,720/- instead of ?10,00,000/-. The CIT(A) held that the provisions of Section 50C were applicable as the land was valued by the Stamp Valuation Authority at ?81,58,722/-, while the sale consideration stated in the sale deed was only ?10 lakh. However, the Tribunal found that the sale consideration of ?10 lakh was accepted by the Sub-Registrar-IV, Jaipur, and there was no reference for valuating the full value of consideration to the Collector (Stamps) in the appellant's case. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made by invoking Section 50C was not as per law and deleted the addition.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the addition made under Section 50C, and concluded that the reassessment proceedings and other grounds became academic and did not require adjudication. The order was pronounced in the open court on 12-07-2018.