2018 (6) TMI 955 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain computation - addition on difference between the actual sale consideration and the fair market value estimated by the Departmental Valuation Officer - Held that - Differnce being 11.04 per cent., which is marginal and well within the tolerance limit/band of 15 per cent. Referring to the case of Bimla Singh v. CIT 2008 (10) TMI 62 - PATNA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that that in valuation of the house property bona fide difference is bound to occur. In the absence of any statutory provision, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to the percentage of difference which can be ignored. The difference between the assessee and the valuer was less than 15 per cent. Not only this, the construction of the house was spread over a period of seven years. In the facts of the present case the difference between the plea of the assessee on the issue on investment on house property and the valuer s report was so meagre that one could assume it to be bonafide difference fit to be ignored. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?6,07,000 based on variance between sale consideration and fair market value.
2. Validity of charges under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of ?6,07,000 based on variance between sale consideration and fair market value:
The appellant contested the addition of ?6,07,000 made by the Assessing Officer due to the variance between the actual sale consideration and the fair market value estimated by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The appellant argued that the difference of 11.04% was within the tolerance limit of 15% set by various courts and should have been disregarded. The appellant relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Bimla Singh v. CIT to support their case. The Tribunal noted that the difference fell within the acceptable margin and cited the Patna High Court's ruling that in property valuation, a bona fide difference is expected, and no strict rule can be applied regarding the percentage of difference. Given the circumstances and precedent, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the disputed addition.

Issue 2: Validity of charges under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The appellant also challenged the charges under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal found that these charges were sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition in the first issue rendered the discussion on these charges moot. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve further into the validity of these charges, as they were interconnected with the now-deleted addition. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the order was pronounced on May 14, 2018.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI showcases the arguments presented by the parties, the legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal.