1996 (3) TMI 150 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal finds genuine distress sales, no tax evasion, adequate consideration.

The Tribunal found that the sales were genuine distress sales due to financial crises, with no evidence of tax evasion or gifting intention. The declared ... Adequate Consideration, Assessment Year, Bona Fide, Deemed Gift, Fair Market Value, Valuation Officer Issues Involved:1. Validity of Reference under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of Reference made to Valuation Cell under Section 55A when no proceedings were pending.3. Validity of Notice under Section 13(2) of the Gift-tax Act.4. Acceptance of Declared Consideration in Income-tax Assessment under Section 143(3).5. Validity of the Valuation Officer's Report.6. Adequacy of Consideration and Distress Sale.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Reference under Section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the reference under Section 55A was invalid as it was intended to determine the fair market value for capital gains, not for assessing the adequacy of consideration under the Gift-tax Act. The counsel cited various judicial precedents, including ITO v. Tandel Automobiles and Jindal Strips Ltd. However, the Senior DR countered that the reference was valid and could be used for gift-tax proceedings, supported by the case of Jindal Strips Ltd. and Daulatram v. ITO.2. Validity of Reference made to Valuation Cell under Section 55A when no proceedings were pending:The counsel for the assessee contended that the reference to the Valuation Cell made before the commencement of the assessment year was invalid. Reliance was placed on decisions like CWT v. Shriniwas Sharma and Laxmi Devi Jain v. WTO. The Senior DR rebutted that the evidence obtained under Section 55A could be used for assessing the taxable gift under Section 15(3) of the G.T. Act, supported by the Supreme Court judgment in CED v. Alladi Kuppuswamy.3. Validity of Notice under Section 13(2) of the Gift-tax Act:The counsel for the assessee argued that the notice under Section 13(2) was served after the end of the assessment year, making the assessment invalid. The Senior DR countered that the notice issued before the prescribed time limit was valid, citing the Supreme Court judgments in CWT v. Kundan Lal Behari Lal and Banarsi Debi v. ITO.4. Acceptance of Declared Consideration in Income-tax Assessment under Section 143(3):The counsel for the assessee argued that the declared consideration was accepted in the income-tax assessment, and the same should apply to the gift-tax assessment. The Senior DR contended that the principles of res judicata did not apply, and the acceptance in income-tax proceedings did not prevent the G.T.O. from invoking Section 4(1)(a) of the G.T. Act.5. Validity of the Valuation Officer's Report:The counsel for the assessee argued that the A.V.O.'s report was improper and the CPWD rates adopted were not applicable. The Senior DR defended the report, stating it was based on valid material and objections were considered.6. Adequacy of Consideration and Distress Sale:The counsel for the assessee argued that the sale was a distress sale due to financial crises and pressure from creditors. The transactions were bona fide, and the consideration was adequate under the circumstances. The Senior DR argued that the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) did not require a motive of tax avoidance and that the consideration was inadequate compared to the fair market value.Judgment:The Tribunal first examined whether the sale consideration was inadequate. The provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the G.T. Act require establishing that the property was transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration. The Tribunal noted that the market value is relevant only after establishing inadequate consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that various factors, including financial distress, can justify selling property below market value.In this case, the Tribunal found that the sales were bona fide and distress sales due to financial crises and pressure from creditors. There was no evidence of an attempt to evade tax or confer a gift. The declared consideration was accepted in the income-tax assessment, and the buyers were unrelated to the sellers. The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine, and the consideration was adequate.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the G.T.O. erred in invoking Section 4(1)(a) of the G.T. Act. The orders passed by the G.T.O. were canceled, and both appeals were allowed. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to address other legal points raised during the hearing. The judgment appreciated the arguments presented by both parties.