2016 (11) TMI 1055 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of assessee in tax case on sale prices, capital gains, section 54(1), stamp duty, unsecured loans

Prashant Arjunrao Kolhe Versus DCIT-26 (2), Mumbai and Vica-Versa

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a tax case involving discrepancies in sale prices of flats, short-term capital gains addition, denial of ... Capital gain addition - Addition of suppression of sale proceeds of flat - Held that- Had there been the case where sale price shown was lower than the stamp duty valuation, then the sale price would have been deemed to be the value assessed under the stamp duty valuation in accordance with the section 50C. However, this is not the case here as the assessee’s sale prices are evidenced by “sale agreements” placed in the paper book and is also higher than the FMV assessed. Thus, without any contrary material, we do not find any reason to uphold the reasoning and view taken by the authorities below that sale of the two flats sold subsequently should be taken at the same price on which two flats were sold 20 days earlier. Thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of short-term-capital-gain of ₹ 3,04,238/- is deleted and sale consideration shown by the assessee as per the sale agreement of the two flats, viz. flat no. 303 and 304 is to be taken as such. Issues:1. Discrepancy in sale prices of flats sold by the assessee.2. Addition of short-term-capital-gain by the Assessing Officer.3. Denial of benefit under section 54(1).4. Addition on account of Stamp duty valuation.5. Addition on account of unsecured loans.Analysis:Issue 1: Discrepancy in sale prices of flats sold by the assesseeThe Assessing Officer noted a difference in sale prices of flats sold by the assessee, suspecting suppression of sales. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this, citing lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The assessee argued that the sale prices were higher than stamp duty valuation, complying with section 50C. The Tribunal observed that the sale prices were not lower than stamp valuation, hence no suppression. The AO failed to provide evidence to rebut the sale prices. Consequently, the addition of short-term-capital-gain was deleted.Issue 2: Addition of short-term-capital-gain by the Assessing OfficerThe Assessing Officer estimated short-term-capital-gain due to the alleged suppression of sales by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression as the sale prices were not lower than stamp valuation. The sale prices were supported by sale agreements and higher than the FMV assessed. The addition was deemed unjustified and thus deleted by the Tribunal.Issue 3: Denial of benefit under section 54(1)The revenue raised grounds on denial of section 54(1) benefit, Stamp duty valuation addition, and unsecured loans. However, both parties agreed that the tax effects were below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. Referring to CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as non-maintainable due to the monetary limit criterion.Issue 4: Addition on account of Stamp duty valuationThe revenue's appeal included an addition on account of Stamp duty valuation. However, due to the tax effects falling below the prescribed limit and in adherence to CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable by the Tribunal.Issue 5: Addition on account of unsecured loansThe revenue's appeal also encompassed an addition on account of unsecured loans. Nonetheless, the tax effects being below the specified limit led to the dismissal of the appeal as non-maintainable in line with CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal due to the tax effects falling below the prescribed monetary limit, as per the CBDT Circular.