9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1457 - AT - Income TaxCapital Gain addition - addition on the basis of difference between sale proceeds declared by the assessee and the sale proceeds taken by the AO on the basis of valuation report of DVO - Held that - We are convinced with the arguments of Ld. AR, basing on the decisions reported in CIT vs. Puneet Sabherwal 2010 (12) TMI 846 - DELHI HIGH COURT that no addition can be made merely on the basis of valuation report and fair market value cannot be substituted for actual consideration received. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rightly followed the binding precedents. Inasmuch as the Ld. CIT(A) basis is a decision on the binding precedent, which binds this Tribunal equally, we find it difficult to hold that the impugned order is either illegal or regular. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that such findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are perverse or liable to be set-aside. We, therefore, do not find any merits in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to deletion of addition under head "Capital Gain" based on valuation report of DVO. Analysis: 1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer under the head "Capital Gain" based on the variance between the sale proceeds declared by the assessee and those determined by the valuation report of the DVO. 2. The assessee, a public Ltd company engaged in manufacturing, had filed its return for the Assessment Year 2005-06, showing an income from various sources. The Assessing Officer concluded reassessment, reopening it due to alleged understatement of purchase consideration in a property transaction. Despite submissions and documents by the assessee, the AO made an addition to the capital gain amount. 3. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and the Apex Court, stating that the addition on the basis of the DVO's valuation report was unjustified. The Revenue challenged this deletion, arguing that the DVO's report scientifically determined the fair market value and that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing it. 4. The argument presented by the assessee's representative was that the CIT(A) decision was based on binding precedents, including the decision in KP Verghese case. They highlighted that the Assessing Officer cannot substitute the actual sale consideration with another figure as per the law, citing various relevant cases. 5. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and legal precedents cited. It noted that the CIT(A) correctly followed the binding precedents and that no addition can be made solely on the basis of a valuation report, emphasizing that fair market value cannot replace the actual consideration received. As the CIT(A) based its decision on binding precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it. 6. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal of the Revenue challenging the deletion of the addition under the head "Capital Gain" based on the valuation report of the DVO was dismissed, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) based on established legal principles and precedents. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/08/2018.
|
