Buyer's direct payment to third-party confirming entity excluded from assessee's capital gains consideration under Section 48

ITAT Chandigarh held that amounts paid by buyer directly to third-party confirming entity did not constitute consideration accruing to assessee for capital gains computation under Section 48. Assessee received consideration through banking channels with TDS deducted, satisfying real income test. Third-party had pre-existing contractual rights and was genuine stakeholder, not mere intermediary. PCIT's second Section 263 revision without fresh material constituted impermissible change of opinion. No tax leakage occurred as amounts were taxed in third-party's hands. Appeal allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) in these consolidated appeals pertain to the validity and correctness of revision orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18. Specifically, the issues are:

• Whether the amounts paid by the buyer directly to the confirming party, M/s Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd., form part of the consideration received or accruing to the assessee for the purpose of capital gains computation under Section 48 of the Act.
• Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make adequate inquiry into the taxability of these amounts, thereby rendering the original assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.
• Whether the invoking of Section 263 in the second revision orders was justified, considering the prior reassessment and examination of the same issue.
• The applicability of judicial precedents regarding enforceability of agreements to sell, accrual of income, and the twin conditions for invoking Section 263-namely, that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Whether amounts paid by the buyer to the confirming party (Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd.) constitute consideration accruing to the assessee under Section 48 for capital gains computation.

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 48 of the Income Tax Act provides that capital gains are computed based on the full value of consideration received or accruing to the assessee. The principle of "real income" as opposed to "notional income" is well established in precedents such as K.P. Varghese v. ITO and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT. The Supreme Court in Sanjeev Lal v. CIT has held that an agreement to sell confers enforceable rights, which can be assigned or transferred.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had valid, binding agreements to sell with Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd., which conferred enforceable contractual rights. Hemali Resorts assigned these rights to the final purchaser, M/s APG Intelli Homes Pvt. Ltd., who executed the final registered sale deeds. The amounts paid by the buyer directly to Hemali Resorts were pursuant to independent contractual arrangements for site development services and relinquishment of rights, and not received or receivable by the assessee.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee received substantial amounts through banking channels with appropriate Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) reflected in Form 26AS, confirming the genuineness and receipt of income. The differential amounts paid to Hemali Resorts were not routed through the assessee, and there was no evidence that these sums accrued to or were for the benefit of the assessee.

Application of law to facts: Since capital gains are to be computed on income actually received or accruing to the assessee, and the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts did not accrue to the assessee, these amounts cannot be included in the assessee's consideration. The Tribunal relied on the principle that payments made to a third party with pre-existing contractual rights do not automatically become part of the assessee's income unless legally accrued or received by the assessee.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the absence of a registered deed between the assessee and Hemali Resorts negated enforceability of rights and that the arrangement was a device to divert income. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that the agreements to sell were binding and enforceable, and the confirming party was a genuine stakeholder entitled to compensation. The Revenue's contention that the entire sale consideration should be taxed in the assessee's hands was countered by the Tribunal's application of substance over form and the real income doctrine.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd. did not constitute consideration accruing to the assessee and thus were not taxable as capital gains in the assessee's hands.

Issue 2: Whether the Assessing Officer failed to conduct adequate inquiry, rendering the assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying revision under Section 263.

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 allows revision of an assessment order if it is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT emphasized that both conditions-"erroneous" and "prejudicial"-must coexist for valid exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO's duty is to examine material facts and make a reasoned order.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the chronology of events, noting that the AO had earlier reopened and re-examined the assessment following a prior Section 263 order, culminating in a reassessment order dated 23.09.2021. This reassessment involved a comprehensive examination of the sale consideration, confirming party's role, and flow of funds, and resulted in no variation in income.

Key evidence and findings: The reassessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 reflected detailed scrutiny of all relevant facts, including the payments made to Hemali Resorts. There was no fresh material or omission pointed out in the subsequent revision orders. The payments to Hemali Resorts had been separately taxed in their hands, eliminating any tax leakage.

Application of law to facts: Since the AO had already conducted a detailed inquiry and passed a reasoned reassessment order, the subsequent invocation of Section 263 without new material amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The Tribunal applied the twin conditions test and found that even if the initial order had some irregularity, there was no prejudice to the Revenue as the amounts in question were taxed elsewhere.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the AO failed to scrutinize the full transaction, especially the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts, and that the confirming party was a device to divert income. The Tribunal rejected these arguments based on the comprehensive prior reassessment and the absence of any fresh material justifying reopening.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the original assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue and that the subsequent revision orders under Section 263 were invalid as they amounted to a change of opinion without fresh material.

Issue 3: Whether the invocation of Section 263 in the second revision orders was justified in light of prior reassessment and examination of the same issue.

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle that Section 263 cannot be invoked to simply revisit or re-decide an issue already examined in a prior reassessment is well established. The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT clarified that Section 263 is not a substitute for appeal or revision and cannot be used to overturn an order merely because the Revenue disagrees with the AO's findings.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the second revision orders under Section 263 were passed without any fresh material or omission and essentially sought to revisit the same issue already examined in the reassessment dated 23.09.2021. This constituted an impermissible change of opinion.

Key evidence and findings: The absence of any new evidence or failure by the AO to consider relevant facts in the second revision proceedings was critical. The prior reassessment had addressed the issue comprehensively, and the amounts paid to Hemali Resorts were found not to accrue to the assessee.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that Section 263 cannot be invoked repeatedly on the same facts without fresh material, as this violates the settled legal position and leads to harassment of the assessee.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the alleged failure of the AO to examine the full transaction was negated by the detailed reassessment order. The Tribunal found no justification for the second revision orders.

Conclusions: The second revision orders under Section 263 were quashed as they lacked legal validity and amounted to an impermissible change of opinion.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

o "When a third-party (confirming party) with a pre-existing contractual right receives payment for extinguishing its rights or rendering services, the same does not automatically become part of the assessee's consideration unless it was routed through or legally accrued to the assessee."

o "The twin conditions for invoking section 263 - namely 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue' - must coexist. Even assuming some irregularity in the AO's approach, there is no prejudice to the interests of Revenue, as the amount in question has been taxed in the hands of Hemali Resorts Pvt. Ltd."

o "The invocation of Section 263 cannot be justified where the Assessing Officer had already conducted a detailed inquiry and passed a reassessment order on the same issue, and the subsequent revision amounts to a mere change of opinion without any fresh material."

o "An agreement to sell confers enforceable rights under the Specific Relief Act, and payments made pursuant to such agreements to the confirming party are not taxable in the hands of the original seller unless they accrue to or are received by the seller."

o The final determinations were that the revision orders dated 20.03.2024 (AY 2015-16) and 17.03.2022 (AY 2017-18) under Section 263 were quashed, and both appeals by the assessee were allowed.

---