Capital gains understatement requires independent proof of extra receipt; Chapter XXA presumption alone cannot satisfy section 52(2).

For capital gains taxation under section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, the revenue must independently establish both understatement of the apparent sale consideration and actual receipt of more than what was declared. A finding recorded in acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA, including a conclusion under section 269F(6), based only on the statutory presumption arising from the gap between apparent consideration and fair market value, is not enough by itself. The acquisition order must contain separate material proving extra receipt; otherwise, it cannot support a referable question of law on section 52(2). The text therefore emphasizes that the burden remains on the revenue and cannot be discharged by presumption alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed in acquisition proceedings under Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in particular the finding under section 269F(6), constituted material to show that the assessee had actually received more than the apparent sale consideration so as to attract section 52(2) and give rise to a referable question of law.

Analysis: The finding recorded under section 269F(6) was examined in the light of section 269C(2). The conclusion in the acquisition order was reached on the basis of the statutory presumption arising from the gap between the apparent consideration and the fair market value. That order did not contain an independent finding, based on separate material, that the assessee had in fact received extra consideration. For invoking section 52(2), the revenue had to establish not merely undervaluation but actual understatement of consideration and receipt of more than what was declared. The burden of proving both conditions lay on the revenue and could not be shifted by relying only on the presumption used in the acquisition proceedings.

Conclusion: The finding in the acquisition order did not furnish material to prove actual receipt of additional consideration, and no question of law arose on that basis. The request for reference was therefore rejected against the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The decision reaffirms that, for capital gains taxation under section 52(2), the revenue must independently prove understatement and actual receipt of more than the declared consideration; a presumption in acquisition proceedings by itself is insufficient.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumption of understatement arising in proceedings under Chapter XXA cannot, without independent evidence of actual extra receipt, satisfy the revenue's burden under section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

---