2021 (5) TMI 17 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain - Additions made u/s 50C - as during that period there was only one purchase and one sale of land and the AO has rightly treated the land transaction liable for capital gain - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the entire addition by taking view that the assessing officer has not given any finding or conducted any independent inquiries that the land sold by assessee can be equated on the same rates. It was also held that no physical inspection has been done; no finding on location of the land, size of the plot has been given. If this land is adjoining to the assessee s land, which could be one of the bases for comparing the rates, has also not been carried out by the assessing officer. The composition of two pieces of land being located in the same area which may be spreading in several kilometer is an absolutely absurd and fallacies comparison. It was further held that by no stretch of imagination, without making any sport physical verification, two piece of land can be compared to work out the fair market value. The assessing officer has simply borrowed the finding of CIT(A)-IV, Surat, without seeing its relevance or reference and applied the fair market value on the assessee s land. No addition under section 50C can be made in absence of any evidence. In our view the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a reasoned and detailed order after considering all the facts, which we affirm. - Decided against revenue.

Issues:
1. Validity of additions made under section 50C without appreciating the facts of the case.
2. Justification of deleting the additions made under section 50C.
3. Legality of reopening the case under section 148.
4. Application of fair market value for capital gain calculation.
5. Relevance of CIT(A)-IV Surat's order in the case.

Issue 1: Validity of additions under section 50C
The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made under section 50C, amounting to ?1,61,30,431. The assessing officer presumed that the assessee was not engaged in the business of a contractor and treated the land transaction as liable for capital gain. The assessing officer adopted the value of land at ?5000 per square meter based on a CIT(A) order in another case. The assessee objected to this, stating that expenses were incurred for land development and the sale consideration was based on the Jantri value. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessing officer did not conduct any independent inquiries or physical verification to equate the land rates, leading to the deletion of the additions under section 50C.

Issue 2: Justification of deletion of additions under section 50C
The assessee, in its Cross Objections, challenged the reopening of the case under section 148 and the subsequent additions made. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessing officer did not provide any findings or conduct relevant inquiries to support the application of the fair market value. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the lack of physical verification and the fallacious comparison of two pieces of land without proper assessment. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that no additions under section 50C could be made without sufficient evidence, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

Issue 3: Legality of reopening the case under section 148
The case was reopened under section 147 based on third-party information regarding the sale of property jointly owned by the assessee. The assessing officer relied on an order from CIT(A)-IV Surat to estimate the land rate, leading to the reassessment and addition of capital gain. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessing officer did not conduct any relevant inquiries or physical verification to support the application of the fair market value, ultimately leading to the deletion of the additions under section 50C.

Issue 4: Application of fair market value for capital gain calculation
The assessing officer applied a fair market value of ?5000 per square meter for calculating the capital gain, based on an order from CIT(A)-IV Surat in another case. The assessing officer did not conduct any independent inquiries or physical verification to support this valuation. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the lack of relevant findings and proper assessment, leading to the deletion of the additions under section 50C.

Issue 5: Relevance of CIT(A)-IV Surat's order
The assessing officer relied on an order from CIT(A)-IV Surat to estimate the land rate, leading to the addition of capital gain in the reassessment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that this order was not applicable to the assessee's case, as no physical verification or relevant inquiries were conducted. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of proper assessment and leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objections, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions made under section 50C. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of conducting proper inquiries and physical verification before applying fair market values for capital gain calculations, highlighting the need for evidence to support such additions.

← Previous Next →