Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 89 - AT - Income TaxDeletion of unexplained investment – Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting self-serving documents not corroborated by cross examination or produced before the AO - Held that:- Following the decision in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II Versus KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT. LTD. [2012 (11) TMI 590 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - with the amendment to the Act, and insertion of Section 50-C, a presumption can be drawn that property was sold for a higher value for determining capital gains, in case of the valuation indicated by the assessee to the stamp authorities, being higher than the consideration disclosed in the sale deed or conveyancing instrument - the express provision of Section 50-C enabling the revenue to treat the value declared by an assessee for payment of stamp duty, ipso facto, cannot be a legitimate ground for concluding that there was undervaluation, in the acquisition of immovable property. If Parliamentary intention was to enable such a finding, a provision akin to Section 50-C would have been included in the statute book, to assess income on the basis of a similar fiction in the case of the assessee who acquires such an asset - the declaration of a higher cost for acquisition for stamp duty might be the starting point for an inquiry in that regard that inquiry might extend to analyzing sale or transfer deeds executed in respect of similar or neighbouring properties, contemporaneously at the time of the transaction - the finding cannot start and conclude with the fact that such stamp duty value or basis is higher than the consideration mentioned in the deed - The compulsion for such higher value, is the mandate of the Stamp Act, and provisions which levy stamp duty at pre-determined or notified dates - the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|