TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted consideration of Rs. 1,39,87,025/-, and admeasuring 1,113.03 sq.ft. on 18.06.2008 for a stated consideration of Rs. 72,34,695/- whereas, on the date of registration of respective sale deeds, stamp duty valuation of these properties was Rs. 1,44,18,400/- and Rs. 79,02,300/- respectively. When Assessing Officer required the assessee to show cause as to why the stamp duty value of these properties' not be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gains, it was submitted that "due to the long gap of 7 to 9 months between the date of agreement and date of conveyance, there has been an increase in market rate" and "considering that the percentage of increase in market value with reference to the consideration by the assessee is less than 10%............. the net difference of Rs. 10,98,980/- should be ignored in computing the long term capital gain". None of these submissions found favour with the Assessing Officer. He rejected these contentions and observed as follows :- "The submission of the assessee has been considered. Firstly, the assessee could not bring on record that the market rate has, in fact, increased in the interim period between the date o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sale consideration for a land or building or both is less than the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority the value so adopted by the stamp authority shall, for the purpose of section 48 be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. It is clearly apparent that this is a deeming provision and the operative word here is "shall''. Thus it gives no discretion to the AO. If the sale value received or accrued to the assessee is less than the value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority, then the AO is bound to take the value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority as the full value of consideration for the purpose of section 48. Some of the cases relied on by the appellant like - Dr. Ramesh Kumar Anand, Swamy Complex Pvt. Ltd. and Amit Estate Organiser are not applicable since they are factually different. These cases dealt with the difference between the value shown by the assessee and value estimated by the Valuation Officer of the Department, in the instant case, it is the valuation of the Stamp Duty Authority which is to be adopted as full value of consideration as per the provision of section 50C(1).  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was prescribed in the statute. Relying upon certain observations made in well known commentary "Sampat Iyengar's Law of Income Tax" (Volume '3; 10th Edition] at page 4362, it is submitted that by the same logic, i.e. employed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gautam's case (supra), it may be similarly understood that section 50C is also subject to similar tolerance of marginal difference. The difference is valuation as per sale deed vis-avis as per stamp duty valuation being much less than 15% in the present case it is contended that the provisions of section 50C do not come into play at all if provisions of section 50 C are to be invoked even in cases where differences in stamp duty valuation and stated sales consideration are insignificant and marginal, it will create undue hardship to the assessee since, beyond any dispute and controversy, such small variations can be explained by several factors and need not necessarily indicate attempt to evade taxes. He thus urges to interpret the law in a fair and reasonable manner in accordance with the intent of legislature. The second proposition is that when there is substantial time gap between the date of agreement to sell and actual sales,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut the language of sections is clear and unambiguous. There is no scope for importing into the statute the words which are not there. Such interpretation would be, not to construe, but to amend the statute. Even if there be a casus omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. To us, there appears no justification to depart from normal rule of construction according to which the intention of legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. It will be well to recall the words of Rowlatt J. in, Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64 (KB) at page 71, that: "...in a taxing Act one has to look at merely what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. "Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes within the letter of law, he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be". 8. In any case, this Tribunal is itself a creature of the Income Tax Act and it cannot, therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can be cured or supplied by recourse to the mode of construction advocated by Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. case (supra). 9. As for the Lord Denning's observations in the Seaford Court Estates Ltd. (supra), which have been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel, we wish to make same observations. The House of Lords itself, in a later judgment in the matter of Magor & St Mellons Rural District v. Newport Corpn. [1951] 2 All. ER 839, did not approve the proposition advanced by Lord Denning. It is interesting to note the articulate expressions of Lord Simonds, supporting the majority view and at page 841 of All England Report Volume 2 (1951), unequivocally and categorically rejecting Lord Denning's theory on the relevance of intent of Legislature: "My Lords, the criticism which 1 venture to make of the judgment of learned lord justice (Denning LJ) is not directed at the conclusion he has reached. It is after all a trite saying that on questions of construction different minds may come to different conclusions.... But it is on the approach of lord justice to which is a question of construction and nothing else. I thi....