Tribunal sets aside CIT orders, emphasizes Conveyance Deed as proof of consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the CIT (A) and AO, directing the adoption of the sale consideration of Rs. 8,33,000 for computing capital gains. The Tribunal emphasized the registered Conveyance Deed as conclusive proof of consideration received unless evidence suggests otherwise. The decision was pronounced on 7th September 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the CIT (A)'s order dated 30-01-2015.
2. Requirement of explicit direction in the order u/s 263 for a fresh assessment.
3. Relevance of the High Court of Gauhati's judgment in the case of CIT vs Shankar Rajkhowa.
4. Interpretation of the CIT's direction to the ITO regarding the taxability of transactions.
5. Correct computation of capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. Consideration of written submissions by the CIT (A).
7. Binding nature of the ITAT's observations.
8. Determination of the quantum of consideration received for computing capital gains.
9. Adoption of the sale consideration amount by the CIT (A) and ITO.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and validity of the CIT (A)'s order dated 30-01-2015:
The appellant challenged the CIT (A)'s order as being "perverse, illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the subject." The Tribunal examined the grounds raised by the appellant and found that the CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal without merit, affirming the AO's adoption of a higher sale consideration for capital gains computation.

2. Requirement of explicit direction in the order u/s 263 for a fresh assessment:
The appellant argued that the CIT's order u/s 263 dated 23-05-2014 only set aside the assessment without directing the ITO to make a fresh assessment, which is necessary to empower the ITO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT's order did direct the AO to make enquiries regarding the taxability of transactions, thus implicitly directing a fresh assessment.

3. Relevance of the High Court of Gauhati's judgment in the case of CIT vs Shankar Rajkhowa:
The appellant contended that the CIT (A) should have followed the High Court of Gauhati's judgment in CIT vs Shankar Rajkhowa. The Tribunal did not find this argument persuasive, as the facts and legal issues in the current case differed from those in the cited judgment.

4. Interpretation of the CIT's direction to the ITO regarding the taxability of transactions:
The appellant argued that the CIT (A) misinterpreted the CIT's direction regarding the taxability of transactions as a direction to make a fresh assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT's direction was clear and required the AO to examine the taxability of the transactions, which justified the fresh assessment.

5. Correct computation of capital gains under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appellant claimed that the capital gain should be computed based on the amount of Rs. 8,33,000/- as per Section 48. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the sale consideration mentioned in the registered Conveyance Deed is conclusive proof of the amount received unless contrary evidence suggests a higher amount.

6. Consideration of written submissions by the CIT (A):
The appellant argued that the CIT (A) ignored their written submissions. The Tribunal reviewed the CIT (A)'s order and found that the CIT (A) had considered the submissions but did not find them convincing enough to alter the assessment.

7. Binding nature of the ITAT's observations:
The appellant contended that the CIT (A) wrongly treated the ITAT's observations as binding. The Tribunal clarified that the ITAT's observations, while not binding, were relevant and supported the AO's approach in the fresh assessment.

8. Determination of the quantum of consideration received for computing capital gains:
The appellant argued that the ITAT did not specify the quantum of consideration received for computing capital gains. The Tribunal emphasized that the sale consideration stated in the registered sale deed should be taken as conclusive proof unless there is evidence of a higher amount received.

9. Adoption of the sale consideration amount by the CIT (A) and ITO:
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT (A) were not justified in adopting a higher sale consideration of Rs. 28,12,500/- instead of Rs. 8,33,000/- declared by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's grounds of appeal, holding that the sale consideration stated in the registered Conveyance Deed is conclusive in the absence of contrary evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the orders of the CIT (A) and AO, and directed that the sale consideration of Rs. 8,33,000/- be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gains. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the registered Conveyance Deed as conclusive proof of the consideration received in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 7th September, 2017.

---