Tribunal upholds order on property transfer dispute, dismisses appeal, affirms tax computation.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the order under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, rejected the Assessee's claim that the property transfer was a gift instead of a sale, and affirmed the computation of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 50C. The Assessee's appeal was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Treatment of the transfer of immovable property as a sale instead of a gift.
3. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order under Section 147/143(3):
The Assessee contended that the order under Section 147/143(3) was invalid as the "reasons to believe" were not provided to the Assessee, citing the Supreme Court decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a letter inquiring about the property transaction before issuing the notice under Section 148. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee was given notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) and had submitted details of the property transaction and capital gains computation. The Assessee did not request the reasons for reopening during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Assessee was aware of the reasons for reopening and had been given due opportunity to address the issue. The contention that the assessment was invalid due to non-supply of reasons was rejected, and the ground of appeal was dismissed.

2. Treatment of Property Transfer as Sale:
The Assessee argued that the transfer of the property to her daughter was intended as a gift, not a sale, and thus should not attract capital gains tax. The AO treated the transaction as a sale based on the registered sale deed, which indicated a consideration of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, even though no money was actually received. The Tribunal noted that the deed was explicitly a sale deed, and the consideration was shown to have been received. The Tribunal rejected the Assessee's contention that it was a gift, stating that if the intention was to gift the property, a gift deed should have been executed. The Tribunal upheld the AO's treatment of the transaction as a sale.

3. Computation of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 50C:
The AO applied Section 50C, which mandates that if the consideration received on transfer of property is less than the value adopted for stamp duty purposes, the latter value should be deemed as the full value of consideration. The property was valued at Rs. 35,11,704 for stamp duty purposes, while the sale deed showed Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The AO computed the Long Term Capital Gains accordingly. The Tribunal upheld this computation, noting that the provisions of Section 50C were clearly applicable since the transaction was through a sale deed at a price lower than the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal also dismissed the Assessee's reliance on the case laws of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited and Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh, stating that these cases did not apply to the facts at hand.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's appeal, upholding the validity of the order under Section 147/143(3), the treatment of the property transfer as a sale, and the computation of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 50C. The order of the CIT(A) was affirmed, and the Assessee's contentions were rejected. The appeal was pronounced dismissed in open court on 08-08-2017.

---