2021 (11) TMI 305 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant wins appeal over disputed property value, highlighting need for evidence & correct legal application

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the addition of Rs. 6,83,500 on account of understatement in the value of a flat sold. The Tribunal ... Understatement in the value of a flat sold - Addition u/s 43CA - assessee urged a preliminary ground that th provisions of section 43CA having introduced into the statute by Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01-04-2014, would not be applicable to the transaction relating to the sale of a flat which was concluded upon registration on 23-04-2013, i.e. much before section 43CA came into effect - HELD THAT:- CIT-A doubted the genuineness of expenditure claimed,he has not made any direct disallowance of expenditure - allegation that some flats were sold at higher rate is vague and general in nature without bringing on record cogent material to demonstrate whether these flats sold by the assessee were identical in nature to Flat No.2. Moreo er, no enquiry has been conducted with the buyer of the flat to ascertain whether any on-money was paid by him for purchasing the flat. Without making any enquiry or bringing material on record to establish the fact that the assessee has received any amount over and above the declared sale consideration, no addition could have been made when it is accepted that section 43CA meant for such deemed addition, is not applicable to the subject transaction. Once CIT (Appeals) concluded that section 43CA was not applicable to the subject transaction, there is no reason for him to sutain the addition on different reasoning - no hesitation in deleting the addition - Ground raised by assessee allowed. Issues:- Dispute over addition of amount on account of understatement in the value of a flat sold.Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 43CA: The dispute revolved around the addition of Rs. 6,83,500 on account of understatement in the value of a flat sold. The assessing officer invoked section 43CA of the Act to add back the differential amount between the declared sale consideration and the value determined by the Stamp Duty Authority. The appellant contested this addition before the first appellate authority, arguing that section 43CA introduced in the Finance Act, 2013, would not be applicable to a transaction concluded before its implementation. The first appellate authority agreed with the appellant on this point but proceeded to analyze the correctness of the declared sale consideration and profit declared by the appellant in earlier years. Despite the appellant's explanation for the loss incurred due to project completion expenses, the first appellate authority sustained the addition, concluding that the appellant had understated the sale consideration.2. Judicial Review of First Appellate Authority's Decision: The authorized representative of the appellant presented detailed arguments challenging the first appellate authority's decision. The representative contended that once the authority accepted that section 43CA did not apply to the transaction, the addition should have been deleted instead of being sustained based on a new reasoning of understatement. The representative emphasized that the authority could not introduce a new basis for disallowance during the appellate proceedings, especially without making any direct disallowance of expenditure or providing concrete evidence regarding the alleged higher rates of other flats sold in the project.3. Decision of the Tribunal: The Tribunal analyzed the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It noted that while the first appellate authority agreed that section 43CA did not apply to the transaction, it still sustained the addition based on different grounds related to the appellant's loss in the housing project, unverified expenditures, and higher rates of other flats sold. The Tribunal found these reasons insufficient and vague, especially without concrete evidence or enquiries into the alleged discrepancies. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that since section 43CA did not apply, there was no valid basis for the sustained addition. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 6,83,500, emphasizing the lack of substantiated evidence for the alleged understatement of sale consideration.4. Final Outcome: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant and deleting the addition of Rs. 6,83,500. The decision highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and proper application of relevant legal provisions in determining additions to the declared sale consideration, especially when specific provisions like section 43CA are deemed inapplicable to the transaction in question.