CIT, FARIDABAD vs. CHANDNI BHUCHAR GURGAON

ITA/653/2009HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01084784200907 January 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR,MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the view taken by the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court found that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the sale consideration as depicted in the sale deed, supported by bank statements and inquiries conducted by the AO and CIT(A). The Court noted that the Revenue's argument for a reference to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A was not tenable as the AO had already conducted inquiries and the CIT(A) and Tribunal had accepted the sale consideration in the sale deed. The Court also observed that the Revenue had not pointed out any rejection of the Allahabad High Court's view in CIT vs. Raj Kumar Bimla Devi and others by the Supreme Court, thus the principle of consistency supported following that view. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 13,25,300/- to the assessee's income as unexplained sources, based on the difference between the sale deed consideration of Rs. 17,06,700/- and the property's valuation of Rs. 30,32,000/- for stamp duty purposes. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, holding that stamp duty valuation cannot be taken as sale consideration under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and relied on a precedent. The ITAT upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, stating the AO failed to provide positive evidence of the assessee paying more than the disclosed sale deed amount.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the value adopted or assessed by a State Government authority for stamp duty purposes can be deemed the full value of consideration received for the purpose of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of other evidence. The assessee contended that stamp duty valuation is not conclusive proof of actual sale consideration and that the burden of proof lies on the Revenue to show additional payment. The Revenue argued that the AO should have been directed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer under Section 142A of the Act, and that the addition was made under Section 69B for unexplained investment, not Section 50-C. The Tribunal also considered the Revenue's argument that the AO wrongly referred to Section 50-C.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 48,Section 50-C,Section 69B,Section 142A,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 653 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 653 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.1.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...Appellant Versus Chandni Bhuchar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant-Revenue.

1.

To be referred to the reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR,J. The instant petition filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 27.2.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (for brevity `the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1580/Del/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of assessee-respondent. There is categorical finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity `CIT(Appeals)] holding that value adopted or assessed by any authority of the State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of land or building cannot be taken as sale consideration received for the purpose

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →