2013 (11) TMI 208 - AT - Income Tax

Valuation of property Held that - The guideline value is Rs. 3,95,91,000 The valuation made by the assessee s banker is Rs. 1.21 crores - The valuation made by the District Valuation Officer is less than the guideline value at Rs. 3,54,73,536 - All the variables are changing from time to time, from authority to authority, it is not possible to reject the contentions of the assessee as a whole - The valuation reported by the District Valuation Officer cannot be accepted - Equal importance shall be given to the other findings by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) Taking into consideration all aspects of the case, the consideration accountable in the hands of the assessee-company for the purpose of section 50C is fixed at Rs. 2.5 crores - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adoption of guideline value for computing long-term capital gains.
2. Authority of the appellate authority to interfere in valuation under section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. Adoption of Guideline Value for Computing Long-Term Capital Gains:
In this case, the assessee sold a portion of its property for Rs. 2,22,64,409, while the guideline value was Rs. 3,95,91,000. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the guideline value as the valuation report from the District Valuation Officer was not available before the limitation period expired. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CWT v. Sharbati Devi Jhalani, stating that the valuation report is not binding on appellate authorities. The Commissioner determined the consideration at Rs. 2.25 crores, leading to an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

2. Authority of the Appellate Authority to Interfere in Valuation under Section 50C:
Section 50C of the Act mandates the adoption of the value determined by the stamp valuation authority for computing capital gains. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has the authority to examine the entire case and determine the value of consideration. While the District Valuation Officer's report is not binding on the appellate authority, the Commissioner must base decisions on legal grounds. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's reliance on personal reasons such as distress sale or financial difficulties to modify the valuation under section 50C. The Tribunal refixed the consideration at Rs. 2.5 crores, directing the Assessing Officer to modify the long-term capital gains accordingly.

Overall, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the strict application of deeming provisions under section 50C and the necessity to base decisions on legal grounds rather than personal circumstances. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions while considering valuation aspects in income tax assessments.