| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0881 (Bang-Trib) : (2020) 204 TTJ 0255 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 50C
There is no law to the effect that the value determined for the purposes of stamp duty is the actual consideration passed between the parties to the sale and it is the burden of the Department to show that the assessee received extra consideration passed between the parties concerned. Hence, the addition made under section 50C on account of difference between the value adopted for registration purposes and the value shown in the sale deed, would not be sustainable.
|
Capital gains - Applicability of section 50C - Alleged additional consideration on account of difference between value adopted for registration purposes and value shown in sale deed -
AO observed that assessee sold an immovable property at Rs. 50,00,000, however, the value adopted for registration before the Sub-Registrar was at Rs. 60,72,000, and thus, there was a difference of Rs. 10.72 lakhs. Accordingly, the AO brought the same as unexplained investment and treated it as capital gain under section 50C. Held: There was no sufficient material on record to influence that the additional consideration on account of difference between the value adopted for registration purposes and the value shown in the sale deed, was passed between the parties concerned, i.e., the purchaser and seller, so as to bring the same as income of the assessee under the head capital gain. The burden was on the Revenue to prove that the assessee really received the extra sale consideration. Further, there is no rule of law to the effect that the value determined for the purposes of stamp duty is the actual consideration passed between the parties to the sale. In instant case, the AO applied the provisions of section 50C for computation of additional capital gain on the basis of the value adopted for registration of the said property and apart from the stamp duty valuation, there was nothing on record to suggest that the assessee received extra sale consideration over and above the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed. Hence, the addition made under section 50C would not be sustainable.
Relied:Dinesh Kumar Mittal v. ITO [(1992) 193 ITR 770 (All.) : 1992 TaxPub(DT) 0351 (All-HC)] Kamal Kisjore Chandak v. ITO [(2006) 103 TTJ 843 (Jodh) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1613 (Jod-Trib). ACIT v. Swami Constructions Pvt. Ltd. [(2007) 111 TTJ 531 (Jaipur) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1273 (Jp-Trib)] Jai Marwar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2003) 79 TTJ 178 (Jodh.) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0659 (Jod-Trib)] ITO v. Satyanarayan Agarwal [(2007) 112 TTJ 717 (Jodh.) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1543 (Jod-Trib)] Dinesh Jain v. CIT [(2009) 34 SOT 444 (Delhi) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 2070 (Del-Trib)] ACIT v. Excellent Land Developers Pvt. Ltd [(2010) 1 ITR (Trib.) 563 (Delhi) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1163 (Del-Trib)]
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|