Case Number: ITA 5966/DEL/2019
Appellant: Mamta Gupta, New Delhi
Respondent: ACIT Circle-68(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2016-17
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-03-31
Pronounced On: 2022-03-31
Introduction:
This case involves an appeal filed by Mamta Gupta, a resident of New Delhi, against the adoption of the stamp valuation by the Assessing Officer (AO) in determining the capital gains for the assessment year 2016-17. The appellant contested the valuation adopted by the AO, arguing that the actual sale consideration was lower than the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority.
Background and Grounds of Appeal:
Mamta Gupta filed her income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 on 19th July 2016, declaring an income of Rs. 22,55,280/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for verification of the sale transaction of a property located in Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. The appellant sold a 1/3rd share in the property, and the declared sale consideration for her share was Rs. 1,42,00,000/-. However, the stamp valuation authority assessed the value of the property at Rs. 6,11,00,600/-, making the appellant’s share worth Rs. 2,03,66,867/-.
The AO issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, questioning why the difference of Rs. 61,66,867/- between the declared sale consideration and the value determined by the stamp valuation authority should not be considered as the sale value under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant responded by providing a valuation report from a registered valuer, stating that the property was sold at the prevailing market rate, and requested the AO to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C(2) of the Act.
The AO referred the matter to the DVO, who assessed the fair market value of the property at Rs. 9,82,03,600/-, which was even higher than the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority. Based on this, the AO adopted the value determined by the stamp valuation authority and adjusted the appellant’s capital gains accordingly, reducing the long-term capital loss by Rs. 61,66,867/-.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO’s order. The appellant then brought the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not appear for the hearing despite multiple notices being sent. Consequently, the case was heard ex parte based on the material available on record.
The Tribunal reviewed the facts of the case and the appellant’s grounds of appeal, which primarily contested the adoption of the stamp valuation as the sale consideration. The appellant argued that the stamp valuation authority’s assessment was higher than the actual market value of the property and that the authorities failed to consider the comparable sales instances provided by the appellant.
The Tribunal found that the AO had acted in accordance with the law by referring the matter to the DVO, as requested by the appellant. The DVO’s valuation was higher than the stamp valuation authority’s assessment, which indicated that the fair market value was indeed higher than the sale consideration declared by the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that the market value of the property was lower than the stamp valuation or DVO’s valuation.
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A), noting that the AO had correctly adopted the value assessed by the stamp valuation authority in computing the capital gains. The Tribunal agreed that there was no anomaly in the AO’s actions and that the appellant had not substantiated her claims with credible evidence.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Mamta Gupta, confirming the adoption of the stamp valuation as the sale consideration for the property in question. The addition made by the AO and the reduction in the long-term capital loss were upheld.
Final Judgment:
The appeal filed by Mamta Gupta is dismissed, and the order passed by the ACIT, Circle-68(1), New Delhi, is affirmed.
Order Pronounced: 31st March 2022
Judges: Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member
Reference: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform