2017 (6) TMI 1153 - AT - Income Tax

Difference between the sale consideration received by the appellant and the value computed by the Valuation Officer u/s 50C(2) - Held that - The property was inspected by the Valuation Officer and it has been specifically mentioned in Column 3.4 that the property is situated about 300 to 400 Mts. from the main road, containing hill/slope are touching the boundary of Adivashi hutments. The size of the land is also not square and touching the big nalla. The method adopted by the Assessing Officer is comparison of stamp duty/ready reckoner 2007 and the sale instances adopted for all these properties. We have also perused the sale instances wherein, the valuation comes to ₹ 192.36 per Sq. Mtr, whereas, in the case of the assessee, the valuation has been adopted towards higher side. Considering the totality of facts, we find force in the explanation of the assessee, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, because, the valuation adopted by the Valuation Officer does not depicts the true facts and the lacunas and explained by the assessee were not considered while adopting the value of the plot. The Valuation Officer adopted the rates of the property towards higher side quoting the sale instances, which are not of similar land. Even otherwise, the points quoted/explained by the assessee were conveniently ignored. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed and the addition made on this count is directed to be deleted.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Club Rent as Rental Income vs. Business Receipt.
2. Addition of Difference in Sale Consideration and Valuation Officer's Computation for Capital Gains.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Club Rent as Rental Income vs. Business Receipt:

The assessee contested the treatment of club rent of ?45,71,097/- as rental income under 'Income from house property' instead of business receipt. The Tribunal referred to a previous order dated 28/11/2010 for Assessment Year 2005-06, which covered a similar issue against the assessee. The Tribunal reproduced relevant portions of the earlier order, highlighting that the assessee's business activities included running a club house and resort, providing facilities like swimming pools and indoor games. The assessee leased out part of the premises to MMTI Educational Research Trust and claimed the rental income as business income. However, the AO classified it as 'Income from house property' based on the fact that the premises were leased out without being utilized for the assessee's business activities.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee had not started business activities as per its Memorandum of Association and the property was leased out as an owner, not for business exploitation. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Shambhu Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT and Universal Plast Ltd. vs CIT, which emphasized that the classification of income depends on whether the business assets were exploited for business purposes or simply let out as property.

The Tribunal concluded that since the premises were leased out without being used for the assessee's business, the rental income should be classified as 'Income from house property'. The appeal on this ground was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.

2. Addition of Difference in Sale Consideration and Valuation Officer's Computation for Capital Gains:

The assessee challenged the addition of ?10,69,979/- made by the AO, representing the difference between the sale consideration received and the value computed by the Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the DVO's valuation was incorrect, as it relied on lower value sale instances and ignored the value of an adjacent plot. The assessee pointed out various factors affecting the land's value, including its location, rocky surface, lack of infrastructure, and economic slowdown.

The Tribunal noted that the AO referred the properties to the Valuation Officer, who valued them higher than the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. The assessee objected to the valuation, but the Valuation Officer confirmed his report. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition based on the valuation report.

Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's arguments regarding the land's unfavorable conditions and economic factors affecting its value. The Tribunal found that the Valuation Officer's report did not accurately reflect the true market value, as it ignored significant factors like the land's proximity to amenities, its uneven surface, and pollution issues. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the valuation method and sale instances used by the Valuation Officer.

Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation and directed the AO to delete the addition, as the valuation adopted by the Valuation Officer was not justified. The appeal on this ground was allowed.

Final Decision:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal dismissing the ground related to the classification of club rent and allowing the ground related to the addition based on the Valuation Officer's computation.

← Previous Next →