9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1019 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - understatement of fair market value for the purpose of stamp duty - Held that - . Nothing has been brought on record that the Ld.CIT had some material before him that the assessable value is more and that the stamp valuation authorities have raised additional demand on account of stamp duty/additional stamp duty till the date of passing of the order although substantial time has elapsed from the date of registration (25-02-2010) and passing of the order u/s.263 (25-03-2015). The revenue authorities have raised additional demand on account of stamp duty/additional stamp duty after a lapse of more than 5 years the order of the CIT setting aside the assessment to the file of the AO, in our opinion, is not in accordance with law. In our opinion, the CIT cannot set aside the order to the file of the AO to make phishing and roving enquiries. We therefore quash the order passed u/s.263 by the Ld.CIT and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Principal CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Application of section 50C concerning the valuation of the property. 3. Interpretation of the term "or assessable" in section 50C. 4. Doctrine of merger and its applicability in this case. 5. Whether the CIT's order was based on a change of opinion. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Principal CIT's Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263: The Principal CIT assumed jurisdiction under section 263, arguing that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT observed that the AO had wrongly accepted a lower valuation of the property under section 50C(1) compared to the ready reckoner rate, resulting in an understatement of capital gains by ?24,23,000. The CIT directed the AO to reframe the assessment after proper verification and consideration of the assessee's submissions. 2. Application of Section 50C Concerning the Valuation of the Property: The CIT noted that the property was sold for ?2,16,15,000, but the assessable value as per the ready reckoner was ?2,66,75,000, leading to an understatement of ?50,60,000. The CIT argued that the AO should have adopted the higher value for calculating capital gains under section 50C. However, the assessee contended that the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities was correct and no additional demand for stamp duty had been raised. The Tribunal found that the CIT had no evidence to support the claim of a higher assessable value and ruled that the CIT's direction for re-computation was not justified. 3. Interpretation of the Term "or Assessable" in Section 50C: The CIT applied the term "or assessable" inserted in section 50C by the Finance Act, 2009, effective from 01-10-2009, to argue that the higher value should be considered. The assessee countered that this term applies only to unregistered transfers. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the CBDT Circular No.5/2010 and the Madras High Court decision in CIT Vs. R. Sugantha Ravindran, which clarified that the term "or assessable" is prospective and applies to transactions without or before registration. 4. Doctrine of Merger and Its Applicability in This Case: The assessee argued that since the AO's order was subject to appeal before the CIT(A), the doctrine of merger applied, and the CIT could not invoke section 263. The Tribunal noted that the issue before the CIT(A) was the cost of acquisition, not the sale consideration. Therefore, the doctrine of merger did not apply, and the CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 for the same issue. 5. Whether the CIT's Order Was Based on a Change of Opinion: The Tribunal found that the CIT's order was based on a change of opinion without any new evidence. The AO had already considered the valuation during the assessment proceedings, and the CIT's direction for re-computation was not warranted. The Tribunal ruled that the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was not in accordance with the law and quashed the order. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessees, quashing the CIT's orders under section 263. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT could not set aside the AO's order based on a change of opinion or without any new evidence, and the term "or assessable" in section 50C applies prospectively to unregistered transfers.
|
