2019 (5) TMI 632 - HC - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69B - unexplained investment - provisions of Section 50C applied for making addition u/s 69B - applicability of Section 50C on purchaser - HELD THAT - AO has sought to treat the difference between the market value assessed by the stamp authority and the purchase price as shown by the respondent assessee as an unexplained investment u/s 69B. This court in SARJAN REALITIES LTD. 2012 (9) TMI 1076 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has held that section 50C by deeming fiction substitutes the consideration received on sale of a capital asset by stamp duty valuation. Such deeming fiction however, is applicable only in the case of a seller for the purpose of section 48. It is an admitted position that the respondent assessee is the purchaser and not the seller and hence, the valuation adopted by the Stamp authority could not have been made the basis from coming to the conclusion that there is unexplained investment. As observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), no material was brought on record by the AO to prove that the assessee had in fact made investments over and above that recorded in the books in the year under consideration. - Decided against revenue.

Issues:
Challenge to order under Income Tax Act - Section 260A - Substantial questions of law regarding deletion of addition made under section 69B - Reliance on previous Tribunal decision - Application of section 50C - Unexplained investment determination - Applicability of deeming fiction in valuation.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order under Income Tax Act - Section 260A:
The appellant revenue challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had upheld the deletion of an addition made under section 69B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The appellant proposed substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision, questioning the correctness of upholding the stand taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition.

2. Reliance on Previous Tribunal Decision:
The respondent assessee had purchased two properties, and the Assessing Officer considered the difference between the purchase price and the market value adopted by the stamp duty authority as unexplained income under section 69B. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing a previous Tribunal decision in DCIT v. Virjibhai Kalyanbhai Kukadia, which held that section 50C cannot be applied for making additions under section 69B. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the current appeal.

3. Application of Section 50C - Deeming Fiction in Valuation:
The appellant relied on the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Sarjan Realities Ltd., which clarified that section 50C of the Act substitutes consideration received on the sale of a capital asset with stamp duty valuation, applicable to sellers for section 48 purposes. In the present case, the respondent was the purchaser, not the seller. Therefore, the valuation by the stamp authority could not be the basis for determining unexplained investment under section 69B.

4. Unexplained Investment Determination:
The Assessing Officer failed to provide material proving that the assessee made investments beyond what was recorded in the books. The court emphasized that the deeming fiction of section 50C applies to sellers, not buyers. As the respondent was the purchaser, the stamp duty valuation could not support the conclusion of unexplained investment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly noted the lack of evidence supporting the Assessing Officer's claim.

5. Conclusion:
The High Court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order, dismissing the appeal. The court held that the Tribunal's decision did not raise any substantial question of law warranting interference. Therefore, the appeal was summarily dismissed based on the above analysis and legal principles applied in the judgment.

← Previous Next →