9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against addition on account of difference in recorded sale consideration of plot of land purchased by assessee and valuation made by Stamp Valuation Authorities treated as undisclosed investment.
Facts: Assessee purchased a plot of land for a recorded price of &8377; 12,50,000, but Stamp Valuation Authorities valued it at &8377; 16,66,400. Assessing Officer treated the difference of &8377; 4,16,400 as undisclosed investment u/s 69. CIT(A) confirmed the addition based on evidence suggesting unrecorded investment by the assessee. Arguments: Assessee contended that Stamp Valuation Authorities' valuation was arbitrary and not reflective of actual purchase price. Assessee challenged the invocation of section 69, as it applies to undisclosed income, and section 50C, which deals with capital gains on property transfer. Assessee cited various authorities to support their position. Decision: Tribunal held that the difference between recorded consideration and Stamp Valuation Authorities' valuation cannot be treated as undisclosed investment u/s 69. Legal fictions like section 50C are limited in scope and cannot be extended beyond their intended purpose. Various High Courts and Tribunals have held that stamp duty valuation does not necessarily reflect actual consideration. Therefore, the addition was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Significant Legal References: Addl. CIT v. Durgamma P., CIT v. Kar Valves Ltd., CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd., CGT v. R. Damodaran, Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO, Sri Har Sarup Cold Storage & General Mills v. ITO, Sri Venkatraja Modern Boiled & Raw Rice Rice Mill v. ACIT, and others. Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the addition was deleted. The order was pronounced on 24.7.2009.
|
