2019 (6) TMI 1645 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns tax assessments, stresses consistency in tax treatment

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 by deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and ... Addition by taking the sale consideration of 1/2 portion of the property - Co-ownership of property with husband - HELD THAT:- Addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified particularly when an identical addition made in the hands of the co-owner of the same property i.e; Husband of the assessee, has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the said order was not challenged before the higher Forum. In view of the above the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- to the sale consideration of the property.2. Consistency in the treatment of similar additions in the case of co-owner.Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- to the Sale Consideration of the Property:The primary issue in the appeal was whether the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was justified in making an addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- to the sale consideration of the property owned by the assessee. The assessee had declared a sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- for her half share of the property, whereas the A.O. considered the sale consideration to be Rs. 45,15,000/-, resulting in an addition of Rs. 11,44,500/-.The A.O. based this addition on the fact that the property was initially agreed to be sold at Rs. 15,000 per Sq. Yard, totaling Rs. 90,30,000/- for the entire property. However, due to a dispute regarding the title of the property, the sale consideration was revised to Rs. 55,00,000/-. The A.O. observed that the sale deed for the assessee's half share was executed at Rs. 25,00,000/-, but the total consideration received by the sellers was Rs. 35,00,000/-, leading to the addition.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] sustained the addition, noting that the property was sold at a lower price to avoid taxes. The CIT(A) referred to the observations of the Civil Court, which indicated that the sale deed was registered at a lower value to evade stamp duty.2. Consistency in the Treatment of Similar Additions in the Case of Co-Owner:The assessee argued that a similar addition made in the case of her husband, who was the co-owner of the property, was deleted by the CIT(A) for the same assessment year. The assessee contended that the Department did not challenge the deletion in her husband's case, and therefore, consistency should be maintained.The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition in the case of the assessee's husband based on the same facts and circumstances. The Tribunal referred to the principle of consistency as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Leader Valves Ltd. The principle states that if the Revenue has accepted a particular legal position in the case of one assessee, it should not challenge the same in the case of another assessee without just cause.The Tribunal held that the Department ought to have maintained consistency, particularly when an identical addition made in the hands of the co-owner (the assessee's husband) was deleted by the CIT(A) and the order was not challenged further. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,44,500/- made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years, 2006-07 and 2008-09, by deleting the additions made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in the treatment of similar issues and upheld the principle that the Revenue should not challenge a legal position accepted in one case in another case without just cause.