Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1200 - ITAT AMRITSARNon-grant of opportunity by AO to the assessee during the assessment proceedings prior to invoking section 50C - Held that:- The assessee’s case, we are afraid to say, is wholly misconceived, and the argument/s advanced before us, misplaced. No violation of either the principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterm partem, or of the procedure laid down by the law, by the AO, and which is precisely what the impugned order holds. Sec.50C is applicable, in the circumstance defined in sec. 50C(1), i.e., where, as in the present case, there is transfer a of capital asset, being land or building or both, at a consideration lower than the stamp value, i.e., the value of the capital asset transferred under the Stamp Act, so that, for the purposes of sec.48, stamp value shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or arising as a result of the said transfer. It is for the assessee to exercise the right for seeking reference under and in terms of sec. 50C(2), and no presumption as to prejudice (i.e., the fair market value being lower that the stamp value) being caused in the absence of any such claim (per the return of income or during the assessment proceedings) would lie. No such claim stands preferred even in the appellate proceedings. The difference itself is nominal, and which in fact would work both ways, so that, if anything, the inference would be of the stamp value being reasonable. Irrespective of the quantum of difference (or in ratio), we may add, being deemed consideration, it would, unless challenged, hold. True, valuation is the matter of estimation, but the same is on scientific basis and, besides, has been accorded statutory recognition u/s. 50C(1) and, further, could be challenged (for its correctness) both under the Stamp Act as well as, where not disputed there-under, before the VO, adhering to the principles of equity and fair procedure. The assessee’s case is wholly without merit. Disallowance of the claim for expenditure toward earning commission income - Held that:- The assessee’s claim remains wholly unsubstantiated. In fact, the basis of a claim for expenditure is to be of incurring it wholly and exclusively for the purposes to the assessee’s business. Basing the claim for expenditure on the basis of income earned by the assessee is itself erroneous in-as-much as incurring expenditure does not automatically yield income, much less in a defined sum, so that the two variables are, particularly in terms of quantum, fairly independent. No basis for the claim, or even specification of the expenditure stated to be incurred, as well as the circumstances for incurring the same, has been made. Under the circumstances, taking a lenient view of the matter, and noting that the assessee may have incurred expenditure on travel, as claimed by the ld. AR before us, we restrict the allowance of the expenditure to ₹ 18,000, i.e., at the 1,500/- per month, and confirm the disallowance of the balance - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|