Capital gains computation turns on the registered sale deed where no genuine slump sale exists and later rectification cannot override it.

A transfer of business assets was not treated as a slump sale because there was no transfer of an ongoing undertaking as a whole, the business had ceased earlier, and separate values were assigned to assets in the rectification deed; the original registered sale deed therefore remained the operative document for capital gains computation. On section 50C, the consideration recorded in the registered sale deed was held to govern, and the later rectification deed could not substitute a lower figure. The DVO valuation did not displace the original deed value for assessment purposes, and the assessee was not entitled to rely on the rectified amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transaction was a slump sale so as to exclude separate capital gains computation, and whether the later rectification deed could substitute the consideration stated in the registered sale deed; (ii) whether the value adopted in the registered sale deed or the lower value adopted by the DVO was to be taken for computing capital gains under section 50C.

Issue (i): whether the transaction was a slump sale so as to exclude separate capital gains computation, and whether the later rectification deed could substitute the consideration stated in the registered sale deed

Analysis: A slump sale requires transfer of an undertaking as a whole for a lump sum without separate values being assigned to individual assets and liabilities. The transaction here did not satisfy that test, because there was no transfer of an ongoing business undertaking, the business had ceased operations long earlier, plant and machinery had already been sold separately, and the rectification deed itself assigned separate values to land and building. The later rectification deed could not displace the clear consideration recorded in the registered sale deed, since it was executed much later and sought to alter the substantive consideration rather than correct a mere clerical or descriptive error.

Conclusion: The transaction was not a slump sale, and the original registered sale deed remained the operative document for capital gains computation.

Issue (ii): whether the value adopted in the registered sale deed or the lower value adopted by the DVO was to be taken for computing capital gains under section 50C

Analysis: Section 50C substitutes the stamp valuation where the declared consideration is lower, and where a reference is made to the valuation officer, the value determined by the DVO cannot be adopted if it exceeds the stamp valuation. In the present case, the consideration in the original sale deed was higher than the DVO valuation, and the assessee's later attempt to reduce the consideration through rectification had no evidentiary force against the registered instrument. The tribunal also rejected the challenge based on alleged valuation defects and held that the DVO's estimate did not displace the consideration stated in the original deed for the purpose of the assessment.

Conclusion: The consideration stated in the original registered sale deed had to be adopted for capital gains purposes, and the assessee was not entitled to substitute the rectified figure.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded on the core capital gains issues, while the assessee's cross objection failed, leaving the assessment substantially sustained with the appeal allowed only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: A later rectification deed cannot override the substantive consideration recorded in a registered sale deed for capital gains computation, and in a section 50C reference the original deed value remains controlling where the transaction is not a genuine slump sale and the DVO valuation does not reduce the deemed consideration below the statutory benchmark.

---