9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1222 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of LTCG on the ground of difference between sale price and stamp duty valuation - additions u/s 50C - Held that - In the judgement of Hon ble ITAT in the case of the Sudhir Kumar G Patel (HUF) and others where ITAT has directed the AO to charge the capital gain income in the year assessment 2008-09 - thus we respectfully following the same restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication regarding the direction issued by the Hon ble Tribunal.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 2. Interest charges under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of LTCG under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the confirmation of disallowance of ?8,60,120/- as LTCG under Section 50C due to the difference between the sale price and the stamp duty valuation. The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), sold land for ?50,00,000/- on 16-07-2008, with a 20% share in the property. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the stamp duty value was ?93,00,600/-, and thus, computed the LTCG based on this value, adding ?8,60,120/- to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, referencing a similar case involving other co-owners where the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad, ruled against the appellant. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant paid stamp duty based on the valuation of ?93,00,600/-, indicating awareness that the registration would occur in the next financial year, making Section 50C applicable at the time of registration. The appellant argued that the sale deed was executed, and stamp duty paid on 31-03-2008, thus the valuation for FY 2007-08 should apply. However, the AO and CIT(A) determined that the LTCG should be taxed in AY 2009-10 since the registration and receipt of consideration occurred in FY 2008-09. The ITAT, referencing similar cases (ITA Nos. 520 to 523/AHD/2014), restored the matter to the AO to determine the capital gains tax liability in AY 2008-09. The ITAT dismissed the appellant's argument regarding the time-barred reopening of AY 2008-09 under Section 147, stating that this issue was not before them and could be challenged separately. 2. Interest Charges under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The second issue pertained to the confirmation of interest charges under Sections 234B and 234C. The assessee did not advance any arguments on this issue during the hearing. The ITAT noted that this issue is consequential in nature and dismissed it accordingly. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reassess the capital gains tax liability for AY 2008-09, following the precedent set in similar cases. The argument regarding the reopening of AY 2008-09 under Section 147 was dismissed, as it was not part of the present appeal. The interest charges under Sections 234B and 234C were also dismissed due to lack of argument and their consequential nature. The order was pronounced in open court on 08/06/2018.
|
