Facts of the Case

The assessee company sold two flats during Assessment Year 2015-16 at values lower than the circle rate. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and made an addition of ₹18,99,000 by invoking section 50C read with section 43CA, treating the stamp duty valuation as the deemed sale consideration.The Assessing Officer did not make any reference to the Valuation Cell for determination of the fair market value of the flats. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition. Consequent to the sustained addition, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal against both the quantum addition and the penalty.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether addition under section 50C read with section 43CA can be sustained without referring the property to the Valuation Cell.
  2. Whether adoption of stamp duty valuation without determination of fair market value is legally sustainable.
  3. Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum addition is restored for fresh adjudication.

Petitioner’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

The assessee contended that the sale consideration disclosed in the registered sale deeds was the actual consideration received through banking channels and that no material existed to show receipt of any amount over and above the declared consideration. It was submitted that the lower sale price was due to specific defects in the flats, including “Vaastu Dosh,” which was also accepted by the purchasers.

The assessee further argued that the Assessing Officer erred in mechanically invoking section 50C without making a mandatory reference to the Valuation Cell, particularly when the declared consideration was disputed. It was therefore prayed that the matter be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper valuation.

Respondent’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

The Revenue supported the assessment and appellate orders, contending that the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting the circle rate under section 50C and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly confirmed the addition. It was further submitted that the penalty proceedings were consequential and valid.

Court Order / Findings

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer made the addition under section 50C without referring the matter to the Valuation Cell for determination of fair market value, despite the assessee disputing the applicability of stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain a valuation report before making any addition.

Accordingly, the Tribunal restored the issue of addition of ₹18,99,000 to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to make a reference to the Valuation Cell and thereafter pass a de novo assessment order on this specific issue after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Since the quantum addition itself was restored, the Tribunal also restored the matter relating to penalty under section 271(1)(c) to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Both appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal clarified that when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation adopted under section 50C or section 43CA, the Assessing Officer must mandatorily follow the statutory procedure by referring the matter to the Valuation Cell. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are consequential in nature and cannot be sustained independently when the quantum issue itself is restored for fresh adjudication.

 Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770632964_MS.H.K.INFRAVENTURESPVT.LTD.ALLAHABADVS.ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCENTRALCIRCLEALLAHABAD.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.