TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-14. 2. The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal but its grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs.1,10,21,820/- with the aid of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. In other words, the grievance of the assessee relates to computation of income on account of sale of a house property with the help of section 50C of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 29.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.7,73,200/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer while making an additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20/- is deemed to be the full value of consideration received as a result of the transfer of the property. As such, the difference between the market value of the property and the sale consideration received Rs. 1,10,21,820/- {Rs. 3,90,21,820/- (-) Rs. 1,10,21,820/-} is added to total income. 4. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee raised threefold of submissions. In his first-fold of submission, it was contended that the assessee has purchased its landed property on 19.01.2012 for a consideration of Rs.2,38,00,000/-. It was sold on 30.05.2012 for a consideration of Rs.2,80,00,000/-. The property was kept by the assessee for a period of less than 3.5 months....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessee has placed on record copy of this judgment in GA No. 3686 of 2013, ITAT No. 221 of 2013. He thereafter put reliance upon the ITAT order in ITA No.532/KOL/2022 in the case of B.S. Industrial Equipments Pvt. Limited -vs.- ITO, Kolkata. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Section 48 has a direct bearing on the controversy in hand, therefore, we take note of the relevant part of this section, which reads as under:- "Mode of computation:- 48. The income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer: Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. A perusal of the above section would reveal that when capital gain is to be computed under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, then full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed by any authority of a State Government for charging the stamp duty, then such valuation determined by such State Government would be deemed to be the full value of consideration. In other words, stamp duty valuation will be adopted as a full value of the consideration as prescribed in section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 13. However, sub-clause (2) of section 50C further provides that if an assessee claims that the valu....