Tribunal directs AO to verify property value within 15% tolerance, dismisses claims on improvements and interest expenses

The tribunal allowed grounds 2.1 and 2.2, directing the Assessing Officer to verify if the discrepancy in property valuation was within 15% and accept the declared value if so. Ground 2.3 was dismissed as the cost of improvements issue was not raised before the CIT(A). Ground 3.1 was also dismissed due to lack of evidence supporting the disallowed interest expenses. The appeal was partly allowed, with directions to accept the declared property value if within the 15% tolerance limit and dismiss the claims on cost of improvements and interest expenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of properties under section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Consideration of cost of improvements and stamp duty.
3. Disallowance of interest expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of Properties under Section 50C

Ground 2.1:
The assessee contested the valuation of properties done by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 50C, arguing that the discrepancy between the DVO's valuation and the declared value was less than 15%, and thus the declared value should be accepted. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 46,40,047 to the assessee's income based on the stamp duty value, as the DVO's report was not available before the assessment deadline. The CIT(A) later considered the DVO's report, which was closer to the declared value, and directed the AO to recompute the capital gains based on the DVO's valuation. The assessee appealed, arguing that the CIT(A) ignored objections regarding discrepancies in the DVO's report and that the difference between the DVO's and declared values was within the acceptable 15% margin.

Ground 2.2:
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the DVO's valuation despite the minor discrepancy. The tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India, which allowed considering the actual sale consideration if the DVO's valuation was within a 15% tolerance limit. The tribunal restored the matter to the AO to determine if the discrepancy was indeed less than 15%. If so, the declared value should be accepted for computing capital gains.

Decision:
Grounds 2.1 and 2.2 were allowed, directing the AO to verify if the discrepancy was within 15% and, if so, to accept the declared value.

Issue 2: Consideration of Cost of Improvements and Stamp Duty

Ground 2.3:
The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the cost of improvements and stamp duty amounting to Rs. 15,03,323. However, the tribunal noted that the assessee did not raise this issue in Form 35 or in written submissions before the CIT(A). Although there was an indirect mention in the remand report, the issue was not formally presented for consideration.

Decision:
Ground 2.3 was dismissed as it was not raised before the CIT(A).

Issue 3: Disallowance of Interest Expenses

Ground 3.1:
The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 18,655 in interest expenses, claiming it was paid on loans taken for property business. The CIT(A) found that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence or show a nexus between the loans and property purchases.

Decision:
Ground 3.1 was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The tribunal directed the AO to verify the discrepancy in property valuation and accept the declared value if within 15%. The claims regarding cost of improvements and interest expenses were dismissed due to lack of evidence and failure to raise the issues properly.

---