THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. SMT.CHANDRA BALAKRISHNAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, following its judgment in connected IT Appeals concerning the purchasing company, held that the sale of the property by the assessee was for Rs. 32.5 lakhs, not Rs. 18 lakhs as declared. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal was reversed, and the assessment was upheld, determining capital gains based on the Rs. 32.5 lakhs sale price. Regarding the market value as on 1.4.1981, the High Court found the Tribunal's valuation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be too low, especially considering the property was purchased in 1974 for Rs. 65,000/- and later sold for Rs. 32.5 lakhs in 1994. The unprecedented increase in property prices in recent years was also noted. Therefore, this part of the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for refixation of the market value as on 1.4.1981. The Tribunal was directed to decide this afresh within three months. The Income Tax Reference was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
What were the facts?
This is a Tax Reference filed by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The reference arises from a direction of the Supreme Court to the High Court to consider a question of law. The assessee, Smt. Chandra Balakrishnan, sold a property. The Revenue contended that the actual sale price was Rs. 32.5 lakhs, while the sale deed declared Rs. 18 lakhs. The ITAT had determined the market value as on 1.4.1981 at Rs. 2 lakhs, which was an increase from the Assessing Officer's valuation of Rs. 1 lakh. The assessee had purchased the property in 1974 for Rs. 65,000/-. The High Court had previously dismissed an Original Petition filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the sale of the property by the respondent-assessee to a company was for an actual sale price of Rs. 32.5 lakhs, as against Rs. 18 lakhs declared in the sale deed, thereby determining the capital gain on this basis (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 45 of the Income Tax Act). 2. Whether the market value of the property as on 1.4.1981, determined by the Tribunal at Rs. 2 lakhs, is too low for the purpose of calculating capital gains (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 45 of the Income Tax Act). The Revenue contended that the question raised was a pure question of law. The assessee contended that the question arose from pure findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal. The judgment does not explicitly detail arguments for each side on specific points, but it indicates the High Court considered the issue in connected appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue and it is pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed by Revenue against judgment of this court dismissing an O.P. filed under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act for compelling reference of question of law. While the Revenue contended that question raised is pure question of law, counsel for the assessee contended that the question raised arises from pure findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal. However, we have considered the same issue in I.T. Appeal Nos.6 and 18 of 1999 arising in the connected cases pertaining to the company to which the assessee sold the property. We have held in the judgment rendered today in the connected IT appeals that sale of the property by the respondent-assessee to the company was for actual sale price of Rs.32.5 lakhs as against Rs.18 lakhs declared in the sale deed. Therefore, following the judgment in the connected IT appeals referred above, we reverse the order of the Tribunal and uphold the assessment whereunder capital gain is determined by taking into 2 consideration sale price at Rs.32.5 lakhs. However, we find force in the contention of the counsel for the assessee that the market value determined by the Assessing Officer as on 1.4.1981 at Rs.1 lakh and refixed by the Tribunal at Rs.2 lakhs is too low. In fact the property was purchased by the respondent-assessee in 1974 for Rs.65,000/-. There is no basis for assuming that the actual sale price was declared by the assessee because assessee was found to be suppressing sale price when the property was later sold. It is quite possible that there was suppression of purchase price in the sale deed at the time of purchase of property by the respondent-assessee. Besides this, the more important aspect is that the property was found to be sold in November 1994 for Rs.32.5 lakhs. It is hard to believe that the property the value of which was estimated by the Tribunal at Rs.2 lakhs in 1981, was sold for Rs.32.5 lakhs in the course of 13 years. It is common knowledge that the property price started increasing in a very unprecedented manner in the State only for the last 3 to 4 years. Price of immovable property, though has been steadily growing, the unprecedented level of increase is only a recent phenomenon. Therefore, we feel the price fixed by the Tribunal as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of determination of capital gains is too low. We, therefore, set aside this part of the order of the Tribunal and refer the matter to the Tribunal for refixation of market value as on 3 1.4.1981 for determination of capital gains. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Income Tax Reference is accordingly disposed of answering the question referred in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms
More judgments on Section 45
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Sip Infotech Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 5355/MUM/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
- Rajiv Kumar, Delhi vs DCIT, Circle 67(1), DelhiITA 3538/DEL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 19 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs Nisha Jhaveri, MumbaiITA 2389/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Arokiaswamy Velumani, Bengaluru vs Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), MumbaiITA 1946/MUM/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026