2017 (11) TMI 913 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - income chargeable under the head Capital gains - Held that - The appeal stands allowed and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee. However, it is made clear that as and when valuation of the land will be considered, the acquisition of price of ₹ 2 crores will not be considered, only the difference of ₹ 9 crores will be considered for any other purpose or for giving him benefit under the Income Tax Act.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the revaluation of assets and its tax implications.
3. Assessment of capital gains under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Applicability of precedents and case laws cited by both parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision which upheld the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) reviewed the Assessing Officer's (AO) order and found the arrangement to be colorable, directing the exploration of taxing the revaluation profits. The Tribunal noted that the AO had taken a view to protect the revenue's interest by reducing the value of closing stock, making it taxable in the hands of the partners. The Tribunal held that the CIT's review under Section 263 was without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of revisionary powers.

2. Validity of the revaluation of assets and its tax implications:
The Tribunal referenced several case laws, including Sudhakar M. Shetty Vs. ACIT, CIT Vs. MaxIndia Ltd., and others, to support the view that there was neither an error in the AO's order nor any prejudice to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal noted that the AO's decision did not warrant revision under Section 263 as it was a justifiable view. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's ex parte assessment lacked necessary inquiries and logical conclusions, particularly regarding project expenses, flat booking advances, and self-revaluation of stock.

3. Assessment of capital gains under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant's counsel argued that the revaluation of assets did not constitute a transfer of capital assets under Section 45(4). The Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dynamic Enterprises held that for Section 45(4) to apply, the capital asset of the firm should be transferred to a partner, resulting in the firm ceasing to have any interest in the asset. In this case, the assets remained with the partnership firm, and only revaluation was done, not a transfer. The counsel contended that the AO's observations entitled the appellant to benefits, and the capital assets should be considered at the time of disposal.

4. Applicability of precedents and case laws cited by both parties:
The respondent's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in ALA Firm vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that the valuation of closing stock at market value is necessary when a business is discontinued, and profits should be charged to tax. The appellant's counsel distinguished this case by arguing that in the present case, assets were not transferred, only revalued. The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order, noting that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest due to a lack of necessary inquiries and logical conclusions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. The court clarified that when the valuation of the land is considered, only the difference of ?9 crores will be considered, not the acquisition price of ?2 crores, for any other purpose or for benefits under the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →