2022 (2) TMI 186 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Invalidates Reassessment, Deems Revaluation Profit Non-Taxable

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata Versus M/s. Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Wellgrowth Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata Versus M/s. Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Wellgrowth Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd., M/s. ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of Section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the transfer of land to the partnership firm.3. Alleged sham arrangement and undervaluation of assets.4. Taxability of revaluation profit.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 147:The tribunal examined whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 was justified. The tribunal noted that the partnership firm, M/S. Salapuria Soft Zone, had revalued its assets and credited the revalued reserve to the partners' accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) believed that this revaluation led to income escaping assessment. However, the tribunal held that any income arising from such revaluation should be assessed in the hands of the partnership firm, not the individual partners. It was further noted that partners' share in the total income of the firm is exempt under Section 10(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the AO had no valid reason to initiate proceedings under Section 147 for the partners.2. Applicability of Section 45(3) to the Transfer of Land:The tribunal scrutinized whether Section 45(3) applied to the transfer of land to the partnership firm. The tribunal recorded that the land was transferred by the partners to the firm as part of their capital contribution during the financial year ending March 31, 2006. The land was shown as 'work in progress' under 'Current Assets' in the balance sheets of the companies and the firm. The tribunal held that Section 45(3) applies only to the transfer of a capital asset, whereas the land was transferred as a current asset. Thus, Section 45(3) was not applicable for the assessment year 2008-09, as the transfer occurred in the financial year 2005-06.3. Alleged Sham Arrangement and Undervaluation of Assets:The revenue contended that the arrangement was a sham to undervalue the assets and avoid tax under Section 45(3). The tribunal, however, found no basis for this allegation. It was noted that the land was purchased at a price significantly higher than the government guideline value for stamp duty purposes. The tribunal observed that the land was held as inventory and shown at cost in accordance with accounting principles. The revaluation was done to reflect the market value and justify the bank loan of Rs. 250 crores obtained by the firm. The tribunal concluded that the revaluation was not a colorable device.4. Taxability of Revaluation Profit:The AO had added the revaluation profit to the income of the partners, arguing that it was real profit and not notional. The tribunal disagreed, noting that the revaluation of an asset does not result in a pecuniary gain that can be taxed. The tribunal emphasized that the revaluation was done to align the asset's book value with its market value and support the bank loan. Furthermore, there was no withdrawal by the partners from their capital accounts, which would have triggered tax liability. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of revaluation profit.Conclusion:The tribunal and CIT(A) thoroughly examined the factual and legal aspects of the case. The reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were deemed invalid, and Section 45(3) was found inapplicable. The alleged sham arrangement and undervaluation claims were dismissed, and the revaluation profit was not considered taxable. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial questions of law arose for consideration.