Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 591 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - sale consideration of immovable property sold within the scope of section 50C - assessee having sold immovable property for total consideration as recorded in the sale deed, less than the value fixed by the stamp duty authorities in terms of section 50C - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is not any one’s case that value registered in the sale deed at Rs. 80 lakhs against each of the transactions or immovable property is accepted by the Sub-Registrar and registration charges as well as stamp duty charges are paid based on the value determined Sub-Registrar at Rs. 80 lakhs. The assessee has computed stamp duty and paid Rs. 5,60,000/- on the basis of each of the documents. There is no computation of deficit stamp duty and this is accepted by Sub-Registrar. In a situation, the value so adopted or assessed shall for the purpose of section 50C of the Act, to be deemed to be full value of consideration or accruing, as result of such transfer. Here, under this provision there is no scope for ambiguity that once, stamp valuation authority adopts value that has to be taken as final for the purpose of computation of long term capital gain and for taking fair market value as on date of sale as assessed by stamp valuation authority. In the present case before us, the stamp valuation authority has assessed and registered the sale deed for proper consideration at Rs. 80 lakhs each (for four properties) considering value at Rs. 3.20 crores and not Rs. 6.40 crores as alleged by the Revenue. This fact is clear from the evidences placed before us. As in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Padmavathi [2020 (10) TMI 425 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has considered this issue and held that guideline value is only an indicator and the same is fixed by the State Government for the purposes of calculating stamp duty for registering conveyance deed and merely because, the guideline was higher than the sale consideration shown in the deed of conveyance, cannot be sole reason for holding that the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, revision order passed by the PCIT is bad in law. In the present case before us, facts are much better. There is no excess or deficit stamp duty paid by the assessee or higher value is estimated by the stamp valuation authority for registering documents. Hence, we are of the view that revision order passed by the PCIT is bad in law and hence, quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|