1979 (2) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules in favor of assessee on fair market value determination for capital gains

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Central) Calcutta Versus General Assurance Society Limited

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Central) Calcutta Versus General Assurance Society Limited - [1980] 121 ITR 727, 2 TAXMANN 66 Issues Involved:1. Determination of the fair market value of the assets as on January 1, 1954.2. Applicability of the valuation basis or formula as per the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, for computing the compensation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of the Fair Market Value of the Assets as on January 1, 1954The case revolves around the income-tax assessment of General Assurance Society Ltd., for the assessment year 1957-58. The assessee's life insurance business was nationalized under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and the assessee received compensation of Rs. 5,95,764. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) computed the capital gains by taking the value of the capital relating to the life business as Rs. 2,79,683 and taxed the balance Rs. 3,16,981 as capital gains under Section 12B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.The assessee contended that the land and buildings were undervalued in the balance sheet as of December 31, 1955, and their proper value should be Rs. 8,13,819 based on a 1949 valuation by chartered architects. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) accepted the assessee's contention and held that the assessee could choose the market value of its assets as on January 1, 1954, for computing capital gains, leading to a capital loss instead of a gain.The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, noting that the 1949 valuation was not disputed and was accepted in subsequent income-tax assessments. The Tribunal also considered the post-war rise in property prices, concluding that the 1949 valuation could be reasonably taken as the value on January 1, 1954.The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the Tribunal had material evidence and was not acting on conjecture or surmise. The valuation by the chartered architects in 1949 was undisputed, and the general rise in property prices post-World War II was a well-known fact. The Court noted that the actuarial valuation in 1952 scaled down the value only for determining the average surplus for income tax purposes, not for computing capital gains.2. Applicability of the Valuation Basis or Formula as per the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956The revenue argued that the market value of the life insurance business as on January 1, 1954, should be determined based on the formula provided in the First Schedule of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. However, the Tribunal found that the Central Board of Revenue's circular suggested using this formula only when the assessee had no other evidence of valuation.The High Court reframed the second question to focus on whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the fair market value should not be determined based on the formula for computing compensation under the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The Court noted that Part A of the Schedule, applied in this case, does not provide a basis or formula for valuing a particular asset. Part B of the Schedule refers to the market value of land and buildings without laying down a formula.The Court concluded that the revenue's contention was misconceived and affirmed the Tribunal's decision. The fair market value of the assets as on January 1, 1954, should not be determined based on the formula for computing compensation under the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act.ConclusionThe High Court answered both questions in favor of the assessee:1. The Tribunal did not act on conjecture and surmise in determining the fair market value of the assets as on January 1, 1954.2. The Tribunal was correct in not using the formula for computing compensation under the First Schedule to the Life Insurance Corporation Act for determining the fair market value.The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.