2019 (4) TMI 1664 - AT - Income Tax

Addition Short Term Capital Gain made u/s 50C - adoption of the circle rate value of the immovable property disposed by the assessee during the relevant previous year and the consequential short term capital gains arising to the assessee which has been held to be taxable by the AO - HELD THAT - In the present case the assessee has accepted the valuation of the capital asset transferred by the assessee has attained finality. Under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the said admitted position of the assessee become proved fact. CIT(A) consistently held that wherever the assessee has accepted the valuation of the capital asset transferred by the assessee as determined by the concerned revenue authorities under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the said acceptance has become final and hence, the said assessee cannot go back on its admitted position and accepted valuation of the capital asset before the authorities acting under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition in dispute - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of section 50C on short term capital gain.
2. Whether section 50C is applicable to leasehold property.
3. Validity of the assessment order based on section 147/143(3) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of ?8,27,735 on account of Short Term Capital Gain under section 50C of the Act. The assessee sold an immovable property during FY 2008-09, but the capital gain was not declared in the original ITR. The AO added the capital amount, and the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. The counsel for the assessee argued against the applicability of section 50C to leasehold properties, citing various case laws. However, the tribunal found that the accepted valuation of the property by the revenue authorities under the Indian Stamp Act cannot be contested by the assessee under the I.T. Act. The tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.

2. The contention regarding the applicability of section 50C to leasehold properties was extensively discussed. The counsel for the assessee provided various documents to support the argument, including lease deeds and transfer documents. However, the tribunal held that the case laws cited by the counsel were not applicable to the present case due to distinguished facts. The tribunal emphasized that once the valuation of the capital asset is accepted and finalized, the assessee cannot challenge it before the I.T. authorities. Therefore, the tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismissed the appeal.

3. The validity of the assessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act was also challenged. The tribunal reviewed the proceedings and observed that the dispute primarily revolved around the adoption of the circle rate value of the property and the consequent short term capital gains. As the assessee had accepted the valuation determined by the revenue authorities, the tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition. The tribunal concluded that there was no need for interference and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, thereby rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the addition of the short term capital gain and confirming the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the applicability of section 50C and the validity of the assessment order.