2017 (10) TMI 683 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence - valuation of property - Held that - The powers are vested in Tribunal in the matter of admission of additional evidence and the additional evidence produced by the assessee is crucial to decide the appeal as discussed in detail in the submissions of the Ld.A.R. From computation of the capital gains of assessee s share was ₹ 6,47,86,542/- and the tax demanded was at ₹ 1,78,32,460/- against actual sale consideration of ₹ 1,38,33,000/- as per the sale deed. It appear to us that the assessee had agreed by sheer ignorance without understanding the tax implications and we are also under the impression that the Representative and the AO has not explained the tax implication to the assessee properly. There was no information with the department that the assessee had received the consideration over and above consideration recorded in the sale deed. The assessing officer also had not considered the above impediments in sale of the property while adopting the 50C value. As pointed out by the Ld.A.R if the additional evidence is not considered it would cause not only financial injury to the assessee but also injustice and it had direct impact on the market value of the property. Therefore, in the interest of justice we admit the additional evidence and remit the entire matter back to the file of the assessing officer to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and to redo the assessment denovo. Assessing officer may take the help of DVO and decide the issue afresh on merits. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the assessment order under Section 143(3).
2. Validity of the assessment order due to non-referral to the DVO as mandated under Section 50C(2).
3. Adoption of SRO value as the full value of consideration under Section 50C.
4. Jurisdiction of the assessing officer under Section 143(3).
5. Adoption of the cost of acquisition and indexing method under Section 55.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of the Assessment Order:
The assessee argued that the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 was barred by limitation as it was not served on the assessee before the time-barring date of 31.03.2015. However, this ground was not pressed by the assessee’s representative during the appeal hearing and was subsequently dismissed.

2. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Non-Referral to DVO:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was void ab initio as the assessing officer did not refer the valuation of the property to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) as mandated under Section 50C(2). This issue was intertwined with the adoption of the SRO value for the property and was addressed in the context of the broader discussion on Section 50C.

3. Adoption of SRO Value as Full Value of Consideration Under Section 50C:
The core issue was the adoption of the SRO value as the full value of consideration for the property sold, invoking the provisions of Section 50C. The assessee sold the property for ?4,15,00,000 while the SRO value was ?20,28,64,000. The assessing officer computed the long-term capital gains based on the SRO value, resulting in a significantly higher tax liability. The assessee argued that the land was under litigation and subject to an unexpired lease period, which affected its market value. Additional evidence was submitted, including court orders and details of disputes under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, which were not considered by the assessing officer. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer to reassess the capital gains, potentially consulting the DVO.

4. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3):
The assessee claimed that the assessment order was invalid as the officer who issued the notice under Section 143(2) was different from the one who passed the order under Section 143(3), and that the assessing officer did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, who was a salaried employee. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction during the assessment proceedings and had complied with the notices. As per Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act, objections to jurisdiction must be raised within one month of receiving the notice. Since the assessee failed to do so, the Tribunal held that the assessing officer rightly assumed jurisdiction and dismissed this ground.

5. Adoption of Cost of Acquisition and Indexing Method Under Section 55:
The assessee argued for adopting the fair market value of the asset as on 01.04.1981 using the reverse indexation method, which was a plea made for the first time before the Tribunal. This issue was also linked to the broader reassessment of the capital gains and was to be reconsidered by the assessing officer upon remittance.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence regarding the disputes affecting the property’s value and remitted the matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment, potentially involving the DVO. The grounds related to the limitation and jurisdiction were dismissed. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, directing the assessing officer to reassess the capital gains considering the additional evidence and to address the issues on merits.

← Previous Next →