TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case for fair market value determination under Section 43CA</h1> <h3>Sai Bhargavnath Infra Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune</h3> Sai Bhargavnath Infra Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition of difference between sale value and stamp duty value under Section 43CA.2. Validity of using stamp duty value for determining fair market value.3. Requirement of referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO).Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Addition of Difference Between Sale Value and Stamp Duty Value Under Section 43CA:The assessee, engaged in construction and development, reported a turnover of Rs. 7,01,53,106/- with a net profit of 10.65%. During assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted a difference of Rs. 78,16,448/- between the sale value and the stamp duty value of the properties sold by the assessee. The AO added this difference to the total income of the assessee under Section 43CA, determining the total income as Rs. 1,08,91,444/- (Return of income Rs. 30,74,996/- + Rs. 78,16,448/-).2. Validity of Using Stamp Duty Value for Determining Fair Market Value:The assessee argued before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that the stamp duty value, based on circle rates, does not reflect the fair market value due to various factors such as location and specific property features. The assessee contended that the stamp duty valuation disregards these factors and is primarily for revenue purposes, not for determining the true market value.3. Requirement of Referring the Matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO):The assessee also argued that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO as per Section 50C(2) and 50C(3) before applying Section 43CA. The CIT(A) acknowledged that courts and tribunals often adopt a liberal approach when the difference between the reported value and the DVO's value is less than 10%. Consequently, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 20,89,083/-, considering a 10% margin.Further Proceedings and Tribunal's Decision:The assessee maintained that the stamp duty value is not conclusive for determining fair market value and that the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not refer to the DVO despite finding a difference between the sale value and the stamp duty value. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including K.K. Nag Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, which emphasized that the AO should refer to the Valuation Officer if the stamp duty value exceeds the fair market value.Remand to AO:The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO to follow the procedure under Section 50C(2) and 50C(3) for determining the fair market value. The assessee is allowed to present all supporting evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the AO must refer the matter to the DVO for determining the fair market value before making additions under Section 43CA. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the AO for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
