Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 633 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained income u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) - amount by which an immovable property purchased by the assessee fell short of its stamp duty value - Assessee argued that land purchased by the assessee had several defects effecting its market value which he pointed out were also noted by the DVO in his valuation report and therefore the market value of the land was comparatively lower - HELD THAT:- As we agree with assessee that majority of the comparable instances picked up by the DVO for valuation of impugned land falling within the acceptable range of comparison with the purchase value of the assessee, there was a good a justifiable case for treating the purchase value of land by the assessee as comparable to its fair market value. We find, there is no basis given by the DVO for arriving at fair market value of Rs. 495/- from the comparable instances listed by him in his report. We see no reason for adopting the said value as the fair market value when the facts sufficiently demonstrate that majority of the comparable instances picked up by the DVO himself showed that the purchase price paid by the assessee was comparable to the instances picked up by him. For this reason alone, we hold that the addition made to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(viib) was not justified and direct the same to be deleted. The contention of the AO is bound to accept the DVO’s report, we agree with the same. But at the same time Valuation of property is only an exercise in approximate estimation. And therefore there is always scope for correction of the estimates on account of discrepancies. Assessee is well within his rights to contest the valuation, which if found justified, the appellate authorities cannot shut their eyes to the same. The decision relied upon by the DR of the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Gayatri Enterprise vs. ITO [2019 (9) TMI 777 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has been rendered in a totally different context where the issue raised before the Hon’ble Court was in the context of revisionary proceedings conducted by the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act finding assessment order erroneous on account of the AO have not taxed difference between the purchase price of the asset and the fair market value of the property. It is in this context of facts that held that the AO was bound by the valuation done by the DVO and having not brought to tax the difference between the valuation done by the DVO and the price by which the property was purchased by the assessee the order passed by the AO was held to be in error. The said decision is of no assistance to the Revenue. The distinction pointed out by the DR on the case law referred to by the counsel for the assessee for getting the benefit of 10% difference in valuation and actual purchase price in the case of GB. Gautam [1992 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] we have noted that the assessee has relied on the decision in the case of Amrapali Cinema [2021 (4) TMI 1160 - ITAT DELHI] for the proposition that the safe harbour of 10% difference in valuation and purchase price provided in section 50C is applicable retrospectively. No decision being cited by DR to the contrary of any higher judicial authority, the said decision will apply to the present case. There is no case for making any addition to the income of the assessee on account of purchase price of land falling short of its fair market value. The addition made to the income of the assessee on account of the same is deleted. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
|