2015 (4) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds Full Consideration Value, Emphasizes Evidence-Backed Valuation in Capital Gains

ITO Versus Prem Chand Mittal,

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directive to consider the full value of consideration at Rs. 12.50 lac, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment ... Computation of the full value of consideration of the property - Computation of capital gain - whether the AO was right in substituting `the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset’ with the ‘fair market value’ determined by the DVO - Held that:- when the legislature has provided to consider the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, there can be no question of the AO substituting it with the fair market value as determined by the DVO. Of course, the AO is entitled to carry out investigation and conclusively prove with some clinching evidence that the ‘full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of a capital asset’ was, in fact, any amount higher than the one depicted in the sale deed. In the absence of any such an evidence, there can be no scope for frustrating the prescription of section 48, which mandates that the computation of capital gains should be done by considering the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of a capital asset. A mere report of the DVO estimating higher value of the property cannot be considered as an evidence of the actual full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset. It is manifest from a copy of the Registered sale deed that the stamp value of the property is the same figure - Additions made by AO is not correct - Decided against Revenue. Issues:- Discrepancy in sale consideration valuation for property transfer leading to capital gain computation.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order related to the assessment year 2005-06. The primary issue was the valuation of the sale consideration for a property transfer. The assessee had sold a property for Rs. 25 lac, with the full value of consideration for the half share set at Rs. 12.50 lac. The AO, dissatisfied with this valuation, sought a higher value through the DVO, who valued it at Rs. 76,46,300. Subsequently, the AO adopted a sale price of Rs. 38,23,150 for half share, impacting the long-term capital gain computation. The CIT(A) overturned this assessment, leading to the Revenue's appeal against the reduced consideration amount.The Tribunal analyzed the case based on relevant tax provisions. Section 45(1) mandates capital gains tax on asset transfers, with Section 48 specifying the computation mode. It requires deducting expenses and acquisition/improvement costs from the full value of consideration. The core dispute was whether the AO could substitute the actual consideration with the DVO's fair market value. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative intent was to consider the actual consideration, barring conclusive evidence of understatement. Referring to legal precedents, it highlighted the Revenue's burden to prove understatement, with mere DVO valuation insufficient for additions.Furthermore, the Tribunal discussed Section 50C, addressing understatement prevention in property transactions. It stipulates deeming stamp value as full consideration if lower, yet the property's stamp value matched the actual Rs. 25 lac consideration in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s directive to consider the full value of consideration at Rs. 12.50 lac, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of evidence-backed valuation and adherence to statutory provisions in capital gain computations.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirmed the significance of substantiated valuation in capital gain assessments, rejecting arbitrary adjustments based solely on valuation variances. The case underscored the necessity for Revenue to establish understatement with concrete evidence, maintaining the sanctity of statutory provisions governing capital gains taxation.