Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1204 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - under valuation of the capital gains disclosed by the assessees and accepted by the Assessing Officer, in relation to the property given for development - HELD THAT:- We are not convinced with this reasoning given by the Commissioner. The explanation of the assessees that the stamp duty levied on Development Agreement is determined by the Sub-registrar on a basis, which is different from the stamp duty leviable on other transactions for conveyance of immovable properties, in this behalf, is quite convincing. As such, the value determined by the sub-registrar as on 15.11.2008 for purposes of stamp duty for registration of development agreement-cum-GPA, cannot be taken as clinching and determinative of the value in terms of S.50C. It is more so, because the assessees have no means of either estimating or evaluating the market value of the property, but to rely upon a certificate as issued by the property registering authorities. Further, the manner or method adopted by the sub-registrar office for arriving at the value of the property, for stamp duty purposes, is not known to the assessees, and the stamp duty, in fact, was claimed to have been paid by the developer. We are of the view that the AO having accepted the value adopted by the Assessees for computation of the capital gains, it is beyond the scope of the powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax to direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the same by making recourse to the provisions of S.50C of the Act. We are supported in this behalf by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Smt. Tasneem Z. Madraswala [2009 (12) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. We find that the impugned orders of assessments are neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and consequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in exercising his revisionary powers u/s 263 - Appeal of assessee allowed.
|