Revisional jurisdiction and capital gains computation: failure to verify stamp valuation upheld, while double deduction for interest was rejected.

Section 263 revision was sustained where the Assessing Officer had not made necessary enquiry on the sale consideration and stamp valuation for capital gains, including possible reference to the DVO under section 50C. The objection that revision was barred by a pending appeal failed. On the computation issue, interest on borrowed funds that had already been allowed under section 24(b) could not be capitalised again as cost of acquisition, because that would result in a double deduction and the disallowance was upheld. Repairs and maintenance expenses, however, were remitted for fresh verification to determine whether they were capital in nature and otherwise not deductible. The assessee obtained only partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263 in relation to the assessment, including the applicability of section 50C and verification of the valuation adopted for the transfer; and (ii) whether interest on borrowed funds and repairs and maintenance expenses could be allowed as part of the cost of acquisition or cost of improvement while computing capital gains.

Issue (i): Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263 in relation to the assessment, including the applicability of section 50C and verification of the valuation adopted for the transfer.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the property was sold for consideration lower than the stamp valuation authority's valuation, while the assessee relied on a deed of correction and a lower ready reckoner value. The record did not show that the stamp valuation had been revised to the lower figure. The Assessing Officer was also found to have accepted the capital gains computation without making the necessary verification. The revisional authority's direction to verify the correct stamp valuation and, if required, to refer the matter to the DVO was upheld. The objection that the revision was barred because another appeal was pending was rejected.

Conclusion: The exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was upheld, and the objection of the assessee failed.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on borrowed funds and repairs and maintenance expenses could be allowed as part of the cost of acquisition or cost of improvement while computing capital gains.

Analysis: Interest on the housing loan had already been claimed and allowed in earlier years while computing income from house property under section 24(b). The same amount could not again be capitalised and claimed as part of the cost of acquisition for capital gains, as that would amount to a double deduction. As regards repairs and maintenance, the assessee produced documentary evidence and the issue required fresh verification as to whether the expenditure was capital in nature and not otherwise deductible under another head. That issue was therefore restored for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest was sustained, while the disallowance of repairs and maintenance was set aside for fresh verification.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was sustained, the interest claim was rejected, and the repairs and maintenance claim was remitted for reconsideration, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order is amenable to revision where the Assessing Officer fails to make necessary enquiries on material issues, and an amount already allowed as a deduction under one head cannot be claimed again as part of the capital gains computation.

---