Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/S Oriental Textiles Processing (P) Ltd., Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No. 433 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 8, 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ..Appellant Versus M/s Oriental Textiles Processing (P) Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant-revenue. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported inthe Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Section 260-A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is directed by therevenue, challenging order dated 31.12.2008, passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’, Chandigarh (forbrevity, ‘the Tribunal’), in I.T.A. No. 758/Chandi/2008, in respect ofthe Assessment Year 2005-06. The Tribunal has reached the conclusion that one of the requirements for invoking Section 50C(1) of the Act is that theconsideration declared by the assessee with regard to purchase ofimmovable property should be lower than the value adopted and assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. On facts it was foundthat the consideration amount declared by the assessee in the saledeed has been duly accepted by the Stamp Valuation Authority andwas not lower than the value assessed by the Stamp ValuationAuthority, therefore, Section 50C(1) of the Act could not have beeninvoked. The power of the Assessing Officer to refer the matter forvaluation under Section 50C(2) has then been examined. TheTribunal has reached the conclusion that sub-section (2) of Section50C of the Act comes into play only in a situation where the assesseeclaims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted by theStamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market value of theproperty on the date of transfer. The claim of the assessee is that theconsideration stated in the transfer deed is the market value, whichstands accepted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. It has furtherbeen held that in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 50C ofthe Act, if the value ascertained under sub-section (2) by theValuation Officer exceeds the value adopted by the Stampt ValuationAuthority then the value so adopted or assessed must be taken as thefull value of the consideration for the purposes of Section 48 of theAct. In nutshell, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is that it isthe opinion of the Stamp Valuation Authority which is to prevail evenwhen the value estimated by the Valuation Officer is higher. On factsit has been found that the value assessed by the Stamp ValuationAuthority is the same as the one disclosed by the assessee in the saledeed. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue we are of the considered opinion that the conclusions recorded by theTribunal is un-exceptionable and it does not suffer from any legalinfirmity warranting admission of the appeal. In any case, Hon’blethe Supreme Court in the case ofK.P. Verghesev. I.T.O., 131 I.T.R.597 (SC), has held that in order to justify the impugned conditionthere has to be some evidence to show that the amount actuallyreceived was more than the amount shown in the transfer deed whichwas presented for registration. There has been no evidence producedon record to that effect. There is no question of law much less asubstantive question of law, which may require determination by thisCourt. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR)JUDGE April 8, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)JUDGE Pkapoor