2012 (7) TMI 611 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal orders fresh adjudication on property transfer valuation dispute.

ACIT, Cir. -6(3) Versus M/s. Goldilock International P. Ltd.

The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication in a case where the Revenue appealed against the CIT[A]'s decision to adopt MIDC value for calculating long term ... Long term capital gain - Valuation - the assessee contended that where the AO proposes to adopt the stamp duty value as full value of consideration, he has a right to question such adoption by asking the AO to refer the matter of valuation to the valuation officer, which right was never given by the AO – Held that:- AO is directed to refer the matter of valuation to appropriate valuation officer after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes Issues:1. Grievance against the direction of CIT[A] to adopt value by MIDC for calculating long term capital gains.2. Dispute over the valuation of sub-divided plots and factory buildings for the purpose of determining full value of consideration.3. Interpretation of provisions of sec 50C of the Act regarding stamp duty value as full consideration for long term capital gains.Issue 1:The Revenue appealed against the CIT[A]'s direction to adopt the MIDC value for calculating long term capital gains, contrary to sec 50C provisions. The AO had initially computed the gains based on stamp duty value, disregarding the MIDC value.Issue 2:The dispute centered on whether the assessee had only transferred sub-divided plots, with transferees constructing factory buildings, or if the transfer included both land and building. The CIT[A] emphasized that the registration mentioned building along with land, differing from the initial agreement.Issue 3:The disagreement arose from the application of sec 50C, mandating stamp duty value as full consideration for capital gains. The Revenue contended that the AO rightfully adopted stamp duty value, while the assessee argued for valuation officer referral to challenge this adoption.The assessee contended that only sub-divided plots were transferred, with transferees building factory structures. The CIT[A] highlighted the registration's inclusion of buildings, contrary to the initial agreement. The AO, invoking sec 50C, used stamp duty value for capital gains calculation, despite the MIDC's lower valuation. The Tribunal directed fresh adjudication, instructing the AO to refer valuation to an officer, verify construction details with transferees, and confirm if the transfer included buildings. The matter was remanded for further assessment, modifying the CIT[A]'s order and allowing the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.