2014 (3) TMI 153 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal confirms sale price based on sale deed, rejects Assessing Officer's higher claim

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Hiraben Govindbhai Patel

The Tribunal upheld the sale consideration of Rs. 7.36 Crores as per the sale deed, rejecting the higher amount claimed by the Assessing Officer based on ... Amount to be taken as LTCG - Whether the ITAT has erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the amount of Long Term Capital gain by adopting the sale consideration as per registered Sale Deed – Held that:- CIT(A) has given a clear finding that the MOU and no other document can be a basis for the conclusion reached by the Assessing Officer and on the basis of these documents, a presumption cannot be raised about receiving the cash by the assessee - no specific evidence is referred to by the Assessing Officer about the allegation that assessee has been paid any amount in excess of the price of Rs. 7.36 crores as per the documents - the price has been accepted by the stamp duty authority and it is not disputed by the authority – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The entire issue is based on evidence on record, duly considered by CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal to come to a concurrent factual finding - MOU did reflect the sale price of Rs. 14.71 Crores, nevertheless, the agreement to sale as well as the sale deed recorded the sale consideration of Rs. 7.35 Crorse - There was no material to suggest that any sale consideration in excess of the said amount was actually paid - the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal both have considered the development and limited use of land to the purchaser - Fifty per cent of the land was likely to be reserved - The AO did not have any other evidence barring the MOU to controvert such evidence - CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal relied on the valuation report of the registered valuer - Without any further evidence, the Assessing Officer could not have substituted such amount - Decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Whether the ITAT erred in confirming the CIT (A)'s direction to adopt the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 91,14,574 instead of Rs. 12,70,40,330.2. Whether the ITAT was right in relying on the stamp value determination by the stamp authorities while disallowing the addition made by the Assessing Officer.3. Whether the ITAT was right in relying on the percentage of profit of the assessee stated in the MOU to hold that the sale price stated therein cannot be adopted.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Adoption of Long Term Capital Gain:The primary issue pertains to the computation of capital gain arising from the sale of land by the assessee to Savvy Homes Cooperative Housing Society. The Assessing Officer (AO) contended that the sale consideration should be Rs. 14.71 Crores as per the MOU, instead of Rs. 7.36 Crores reflected in the sale deed. The AO relied on the MOU indicating a sale price of Rs. 12.70 Crores, discarding the sale deed as not reflecting the correct consideration. However, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, noting that 50% of the land was reserved and unavailable for development, justifying the reduced sale price. The Tribunal observed that the MOU was primarily for forming a partnership and not solely for the sale of land. The supplementary deed indicated that the remaining price would be paid if the reservation issue was resolved. The Tribunal found no evidence of cash transactions beyond the sale deed amount, and no unaccounted cash was found during the search. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the sale consideration of Rs. 7.36 Crores as per the sale deed.2. Reliance on Stamp Value Determination:The AO's adoption of Rs. 14.71 Crores as the sale consideration was based solely on the MOU, without any corroborating evidence. The Tribunal noted that the jantri price (stamp value) at the time did not exceed the declared sale value in the sale deed. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal emphasized that the stamp duty authority accepted the sale consideration of Rs. 7.36 Crores. The Tribunal highlighted that no evidence was found during the search to suggest that the assessee received any amount in excess of the sale deed value. Therefore, the ITAT's reliance on the stamp value determination was justified, and the AO's addition was disallowed.3. Percentage of Profit in MOU:The Tribunal analyzed the MOU, which indicated a profit-sharing arrangement rather than a straightforward sale. The MOU mentioned a 45% profit share for the assessee despite bearing 50% of the expenses, suggesting that the higher land price in the MOU might have been to compensate for the lower profit percentage. The Tribunal found that the MOU was not a simple sale agreement but involved forming a partnership, with the assessee contributing land as capital. The Tribunal concluded that the MOU's stated price could not be considered the actual sale price due to the partnership context and lack of corroborating evidence. The CIT (A) also noted that no specific evidence supported the AO's claim of cash transactions beyond the sale deed amount. Thus, the ITAT correctly relied on the profit-sharing percentage in the MOU to determine the sale price.Conclusion:The Tribunal's findings were based on the evidence on record, and both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal reached concurrent factual conclusions. The MOU, though indicating a higher sale price, did not result in a final transaction reflecting that price. The sale deed and agreement to sale recorded a consideration of Rs. 7.35 Crores, with no evidence of any additional cash transactions. The Tribunal also considered the restricted use of the land due to reservations, justifying the reduced sale price. The AO's reliance on the MOU without further evidence was insufficient to establish a higher sale consideration. The Tribunal's reliance on the registered valuer's report for fair market value was also upheld. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, with no question of law arising from the Tribunal's findings.