9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 533 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - error noted by the CIT that sale of properties by the assessee during the year was not examined by the AO vis- -vis its stamp duty value for the purpose of invoking section 43CA which requires the sale consideration to be substituted with the stamp duty value when the same exceeds the actual sale consideration - HELD THAT - We have noted that the CIT has not pointed out any instance where actual sale consideration of the property sold needed to be substituted with the stamp duty value in terms of section 43CA despite the fact that details of all 27 properties were filed by the assessee to him clearly pointing out that in no case the stamp duty value exceeded actual sale consideration and all documents to evidence the same were also filed to the PCIT. PCIT clearly has been unable to demonstrate even a single instance of sale of property inviting invocation of section 43CA of the Act. Therefore, clearly the PCIT has failed to make out a case of any error having crept in the order of the AO for having accepted the actual sale consideration of properties sold as opposed to their stamp duty value in terms of section 43CA of the Act. His finding of the error, we find, is restricted to the fact that the stamp duty valuation of the property has not been done correctly. As pointed out by the assessee and as noted by us from the impugned order, the CIT has picked up one instance of the sale of the property and noted that stamp duty valuation of the same was done by adopting incorrect figure of area of the property sold. Assessee has demonstrated before us that this finding of the ld.Pr.CIT was incorrect, because he had not appreciated all the documents placed before him, which clearly revealed that the stamp duty authority had valued entire area of the property sold. Assessee has demonstrated by way of certificate of stamp duty authority that there were separate certificates, one pertaining to the second floor and the floor above it, and other pertaining to the ground floor and the cellar, and the ld.Pr.CIT had considered only first certificate and missed out on taking note of other certificate pertaining to the ground floor and cellar, and therefore, the fallacy in his finding that the stamp duty valuation authority had considered incorrect figure of the properties sold for valuation. DR was unable to controvert the aforestated facts. Therefore, we agree with assessee that the basis with the CIT for finding error in the order of the AO was on incorrect appreciation of the facts, and therefore also we hold that the finding of the error by the Ld.PCIT in the order of the AO is not sustainable. We are in complete agreement with assessee that in any case his finding of error vis a vis incorrect valuation by stamp duty authority is beyond the scope of powers of the Revenue authorities - As gone through the provisions of section 43CA and find that the only authority given under the said section is to substitute actual consideration with the stamp duty valuation where the later exceeds the former, and there is no scope for questioning the stamp authorities valuation of the property. Even the Ld.DR was unable to controvert this position of law - once competent authority has determined jantri value. AO/CIT cannot find any fault in the same, AO s cannot go beyond competent authority concerned for making addition. In the present case, this is exactly the error which has been noted by the CIT that the AO has not looked into the mistake in the valuation of the properties sold by the assessee by the stamp duty authorities. When this aspect is clearly beyond the scope of the powers of Revenue authorities, there is no question of the AO being in error for not having examined the same. We hold that the ld.Pr.CIT has failed to point out any error in the order of the AO, and his finding of the error if any is beyond the scope of powers of Revenue authorities and on complete mis-appreciation of the facts on the issue of invocation of section 43CA of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Error in the Assessment Order and Prejudice to Revenue. 3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act. 4. Examination of Stamp Duty Valuation by Revenue Authorities. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the Ld. Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate any error in the assessment order that warranted the exercise of revisionary powers under Section 263. 2. Error in the Assessment Order and Prejudice to Revenue: The Ld. Pr. CIT found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because the AO did not make proper inquiries regarding the sale of properties in the context of Section 43CA of the Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. Pr. CIT did not point out any specific instance where the actual sale consideration was less than the stamp duty valuation, which would necessitate invoking Section 43CA. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. Pr. CIT failed to establish any error in the assessment order. 3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 43CA, which requires substituting the actual consideration with the stamp duty valuation if the latter is higher. The assessee provided detailed evidence showing that the sale consideration exceeded the stamp duty valuation for all properties sold. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Pr. CIT incorrectly appreciated the facts and failed to demonstrate any instance where Section 43CA was applicable. 4. Examination of Stamp Duty Valuation by Revenue Authorities: The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the Revenue authorities do not have the power to question the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's role is limited to comparing the actual sale consideration with the stamp duty valuation and substituting the latter if it is higher. The Tribunal cited several case laws supporting this view and concluded that the Ld. Pr. CIT's finding of error based on questioning the stamp duty valuation was beyond the scope of powers of the Revenue authorities. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under Section 263, holding that it was not sustainable. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order on 8th March 2024 at Ahmedabad.
|
