News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
I-T - Whether if property is sold under duress at lesser value as it was under litigation, provisions of Sec 50C cannot be mechanically applied to tax capital gains - YES: ITAT

By TIOL News Service

PANAJI, JUNE 30, 2015: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether if property is sold under duress at lesser value as it was under litigation, provisions of Sec 50C cannot be mechanically applied to tax capital gains. YES is the answer.

Facts of the case

The assessee is a non-resident individual, who filed his return of income electronically declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO found that the assessee had sold immovable property admeasuring 1200 sq. mtr. situated at Betalbatim, described in the Land Registration Office of Salcete under No. 35121 of New Series, not enrolled in the Land Revenue Office but surveyed under No. 96/1 of Betalbatim Village on 11/10/2010 for Rs.20,00,000/-. The said property was purchased on 03/01/2001 for Rs. 10,00,000/-. AO further observed that the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar for stamp duty purpose was Rs. 44.25 Lac. whereas assessee had shown sale consideration at Rs. 20 Lac.

Assessee was asked to explain why value adopted for stamp duty purpose should not be adopted as sale consideration for computation of capital gains. The assessee had replied that it had sold the property for Rs. 20,00,000/- only. The valuation of the property for the purpose of stamp duty was taken at Rs. 44,25,000/- however it had received a sum of only Rs. 20,00,000/-. The property under question was under litigation and hence sold at lesser value as the assessee was in urgent need of funds. AO had not accepted the submission of the assessee and proceeded to compute LTCG by taking the stamp duty value as the full sale consideration.

On appeal, the CIT(A) was convinced that no permanent structure of any kind can be erected on the impugned land. The AO had not considered the circumstances relating to the land and had mechanically applied the provisions of sec 50C. CIT(A) finally concluded by holding that AO was not justified in mechanically applying the provisions of sec. 50C and accordingly, directed AO to delete the additions made.

Having heard the matter, the Tribunal held that,

++ the assessee has shown sale consideration from the sale of impugned property, whose stamp duty value was much higher. It is also undisputed fact that the assessee had sold the property under duress. It is also an undisputed fact that the bungalow erected on the impugned land was demolished by the local authorities. Such facts lead to only one conclusion that the stamp duty valuation is not done considering these related factors. In our considered opinion, the matter should have been referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to value the property after considering all the related facts in the impugned land. In the interest of justice and fair play, we therefore, restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to refer the matter to the DVO mentioning the special character of the impugned property and decide the issue afresh after giving reasonable and fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

(See 2015-TIOL-953-ITAT-PANAJI)


POST YOUR COMMENTS