9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (7) TMI 105 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 56(2)(x) - difference in fair market value of the land as determined by the stamp valuation authorities and decalred by assessee - As submitted that assessee has produced Registered Valuer s report who had valued property at much lower than the actual sale consideration because of location and condition and use of the land the fair market value was much far below the stamp duty value - earlier the person from whom assessee had purchased the property in this case the matter was referred to the departmental Valuation Officer who had submitted his report on 29/06/2017 who has valued the same property as on 30/12/2013 at Rs. 22, 88, 790/- for the A.Y. 2013-14 - HELD THAT - When the department itself has got the same property valued and it has been found by the AVO that it was far below the ready reckoner value and the property was valued at Rs. 33, 30, 250/- five years before the purchase was made by the assessee. If one takes the index value for 5 years then it comes to Rs. 42, 30, 500/- which is still far below the consideration of Rs. 75, 00, 000/-. Then how can it be held that the fair market value of the property is Rs. 6, 91, 82, 500/-. The third proviso to Clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 56 clearly provides that if the stamp duty of value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on the grounds mentioned in Section 50C(2) then ld. AO has to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. Once the assessee has challenged the valuation specifically and has brought all these facts of earlier valuation then either AO should have accepted the valuation done by the department earlier and taken the index cost or should have referred the matter to the DVO / AO. Since in the remand report called for by the ld. DRP in the case of the assessee for present assessment year AO himself has considered all these aspects by taking into consideration the earlier departmental valuation officer s report and the index value as per the ready reckoner is Rs. 42, 38, 500/- then the sale consideration of Rs. 75, 00, 000/- is held to be far reasonable and fair market value of the property. Accordingly the difference of Rs. 6, 16, 82, 500/- added by the ld. AO is deleted. Assessee appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Validity of Reopening under Section 148A The Tribunal noted that the appeal challenged the validity of reopening under Section 148A. However, the impugned order primarily dealt with the merits of the addition under Section 56(2)(x). The reopening was initiated based on information received from the Income Tax Department's insight portal indicating that the assessee had made investments but had not filed returns. The AO issued notice under Section 148 accordingly. There was no detailed discussion on the validity of reopening in the impugned order, and the Tribunal did not find any infirmity in the reopening process as per the facts presented. Addition under Section 56(2)(x) on Difference Between Stamp Duty Value and Purchase Consideration Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act provides that if an individual or Hindu Undivided Family receives any immovable property without consideration or for inadequate consideration, the difference between the fair market value and the consideration paid is taxable as income from other sources. The third proviso to Clause (x) of sub-section (2) states that if the stamp duty value is disputed on grounds mentioned in Section 50C(2), the AO must refer the matter to the Valuation Officer for determination of FMV. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO had made an addition of Rs. 6,16,82,500/- based on the difference between the stamp duty value (Rs. 6,91,82,500/-) and the purchase consideration (Rs. 75,00,000/-). The assessee challenged this addition, submitting a Registered Valuer's report valuing the property much lower than the stamp duty value, citing location, condition, and use of land. The assessee further brought on record a prior departmental valuation for the same property carried out for an earlier assessment year (AY 2013-14), where the DVO had valued the property at Rs. 33,30,250/- as of 30/12/2013. The AO's remand report acknowledged these submissions and accepted the earlier departmental valuation and indexed it to Rs. 42,38,500/- for FY 2018-19, which was still significantly lower than the purchase consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/-. The AO observed that the sale consideration was "far reasonable and fair market value of the property" compared to the stamp duty value, which was much higher. Key Evidence and Findings:
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the third proviso to Section 56(2)(x) mandates that if the stamp duty value is disputed on specified grounds, the AO must refer the matter to the Valuation Officer. Since the assessee had specifically challenged the stamp duty valuation and produced earlier departmental valuation reports, the AO was required either to accept the earlier valuation and index it or refer the matter to the DVO. The AO's failure to do so initially was rectified in the remand report. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the stamp duty value was not the correct FMV due to the property's location, condition, and use, supported by a Registered Valuer's report and the earlier departmental valuation. The Revenue contended that the matter could be remanded to the AO for referral to the DVO. The AO's remand report effectively accepted the assessee's contention that the indexed earlier departmental valuation was more representative of FMV than the stamp duty value. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/- was reasonable and fair market value of the property. The huge difference of Rs. 6,16,82,500/- based on the stamp duty value was not sustainable. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held:
The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that when the stamp duty value is disputed under Section 50C(2), the AO is obliged to refer the valuation to the Valuation Officer as per the third proviso to Section 56(2)(x). Failure to do so renders the addition unsustainable. On the facts, the Tribunal accepted the indexed earlier departmental valuation as a reliable indicator of FMV, rather than the much higher stamp duty value, thereby protecting the assessee from an arbitrary addition. Final determinations:
|
