Capital gains valuation cannot substitute alleged undisclosed sale consideration without evidence of higher receipt.

For capital gains on transfer of immovable property, a valuation report alone cannot justify taxing a higher consideration where there is no evidence that the assessee actually received more than the sale deed disclosed. A reference under section 55A produced differing valuation reports, but the decisive point was that market value and disclosed sale consideration are not interchangeable for taxing undisclosed receipts. In the absence of proof of extra consideration, the higher valuation could not be adopted to enhance the capital gains computation, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for computing capital gains on transfer of immovable property, the valuation report could be adopted in the absence of evidence that the assessee had received consideration higher than that disclosed in the sale deed.

Analysis: The dispute concerned computation of capital gains arising from sale of immovable property. A valuation reference was made under section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Valuation Officer issued multiple reports with differing figures. The decisive principle applied was that mere difference between the market value of the property and the consideration stated in the transfer document does not, by itself, justify charging capital gains on an enhanced amount unless there is evidence that the assessee received more than what was disclosed as consideration. No such evidence was shown.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the higher valuation could not be used to tax any undisclosed consideration for capital gains purposes.

---