9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruing, as result of such transfer. Here, under this provision there is no scope for ambiguity that once, stamp valuation authority adopts value that has to be taken as final for the purpose of computation of long term capital gain and for taking fair market value as on date of sale as assessed by stamp valuation authority. In the present case before us, the stamp valuation authority has assessed and registered the sale deed for proper consideration at Rs. 80 lakhs each (for four properties) considering value at Rs. 3.20 crores and not Rs. 6.40 crores as alleged by the Revenue. This fact is clear from the evidences placed before us. As in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Padmavathi [ 2020 (10) TMI 425 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has considered this issue and held that guideline value is only an indicator and the same is fixed by the State Government for the purposes of calculating stamp duty for registering conveyance deed and merely because, the guideline was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance, cannot be sole reason for holding that the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, revision order passed by the PCIT is bad in law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer accepted the sale consideration and assessed long term capital gain accordingly. 4. Subsequently, the PCIT issued show-cause notice for revising the assessment order u/s. 263 of the Act as to why assessment be not revised, the assessee having sold immovable property for total consideration as recorded in the sale deed, less than the value fixed by the stamp duty authorities in terms of section 50C of the Act. According to the PCIT, the assessment order is erroneous and pre-judicial to the interests of the revenue. 5. In response to the show-cause notice, on behalf of the assessee, explanation vide letter dated 06.03.2021 was filed stating that total fair market value of the property as per sale deed dated 25.04.2016 was Rs. 3.20 crores i.e. Rs. 80 lakhs per document and purchasers of the respective property have paid stamp duty on the basis of purchase value mentioned in the sale deed and nothing over and above has been charged by the Sub-Registrar and has not over-valued the property, over and above what was declared in the sale deed at Rs. 3.20 crores i.e., Rs. 80 lakhs per document. But, the PCIT was not convinced and according to him, stamp valuation authority ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Department TNREGINET and certificate issued on 10.02.2023. The fair market value in respect of registration deed registered at 382/2016 is Rs. 80.00 lakhs and consideration mentioned is also Rs. 80.00 lakhs. Similarly, in respect of document Nos. 383/2016, 384/2016 and 385/2016, market value and consideration value is identical i.e. Rs. 80 lakhs. The learned counsel for the assessee also took us through another certificate of encumbrance on the subject property generated by the assessee on 09.03.2023 from the Registration Department - TNREGINET, which is enclosed in assessee s paper book at pages 22 to 29, which also suggest that sale deed registered vide document nos.382 to 385 of 2016, the consideration value and market value of the property is exactly identical i.e., Rs. 80 lakhs of each instrument and thus, total consideration comes to Rs. 3.20 crores. Now, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted another copy of certificate of encumbrance, whereby the Department alleged that market value as per registration department is Rs. 1.60 crores, as against consideration value at Rs. 80 lakhs in regard to all these four transactions i.e., each of the transaction. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilding or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the stamp valuation authority ) for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed (or assessable) shall, for the purpose of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer. 9. The mandate of provisions of section 50C is very clear and states that value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority is to be deemed, for and from assessment year 2003-04 is to be full value of consideration u/s. 50C of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 50C of the Act, envisages a situation where consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer by the assessee of capital asset , being land, building or both is less than value adopted or assessed by any authority of State Government i.e stamp valuation authority has referred to any section 50C of the Act for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer. In such a situation, the value so adopted or assessed shall for the purpose of section 50C of the Act, to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale consideration reflected in the registered document. The question would be as to what is the effect of the guideline value fixed by the State Government. There are long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that guideline value is only an indicator and the same is fixed by the State Government for the purposes of calculating stamp duty on a deal of conveyance. Therefore, merely because the guideline was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance, cannot be the sole reason for holding that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Padmavathi (supra), wherein the Hon ble High Court has considered this issue and held that guideline value is only an indicator and the same is fixed by the State Government for the purposes of calculating stamp duty for registering conveyance deed and merely because, the guideline was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance, cannot be sole reason for holding that the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
