No Addition Allowed Under Section 50C as DVO Valuation Difference Was Under Tolerance Limits

“4. Ground no.2, relates to addition of 57,68,020, on account of income under section 43CA of the Act.

5. Facts in brief:- The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30/10/2017, declaring a total loss of (-) 1,06,13,791. A survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted at the premises of M/s. Tirupati Developers. Based on certain incriminating documents found and impounded during the survey operation, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act after recording the reasons as required by section 148(2) of the Act and obtaining necessary sanction under section 151 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 12/02/2021, was issued and duly served upon the assessee through e-mail requiring it to furnish the return of income. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee, vide its reply dated 12/03/2021, stated that to treat his return of income filed under section 139(1) on 05/10/2017, as return filed in compliance of the notice under section 148 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) was issued on 16/12/2021, and notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued, calling for information to the assessee from time to time and served upon assessee. The Assessing Officer examined the impounded documents and found that page no.6 to 24 of Annexure A2/35 is copy of sale deed dated 31/05/2016 of land at Khasra no.83, MouzaDongargaon, P.S.K. 73, having area of 2.63 hectares, Nagpur between the assessee and M/s. Tirupati Developers. As per the sale deed, value of the immovable property adopted by the stamp duty authority is 7.20 crore whereas the sale consideration paid by the assessee is only 3.50 crore, and thus there was a difference of 3.70 crore between the market value of the property adopted by Stamp Duty Authority and the actual sale consideration attracted the provision of section 43CA of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 24/03/2022, and has made the addition of 57,68,020, under section 43CA of the Act. The Assessing Officer has thus determined the total loss as () 48,45,771. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority.

6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:

“During the appellate proceedings, the appellant’s AR has filed a detailed written submission. I have carefully gone through the submission filed by the AR, the assessment order and material available on record. It is noted that the appellant’s AR has filed the same submission before the AO. It is seen that the appellant’s case clearly comes under the purview of section 43CA of the Act. The market value of the immovable property as per the DVO’s report is Rs. 4,07,68,020 whereas the value as per the actual sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed is Rs.3,50,00,000. The difference between the two, i.e., Rs.57,68,020/is more than 10% of the actual sale consideration and therefore the appellant’s case clearly falls under the purview of section 43CA of the Act. In the written submission filed by the appellant’s AR, it has been argued that section43CA cannot be applied in the appellant’s case since the property has certain disadvantages. All these facts have been carefully considered by the DVO while determining the market value and therefore, no further relief can be given on this account. The appellant’s AR has also referred to certain judicial decisions in support of the arguments. It is seen that the facts and circumstances involved in the cited cases are totally different from the facts involved in the appellant’s case. Therefore, the appellant cannot get relief.

“8. We find merit in the submission of Ld. A.R. the difference between the fair market value determined by the DVO and actual sale consideration is Rs.7,14,530/- i.e slightly more than 2 per cent of the sale consideration. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction V/s. DCIT (supra) has held that where difference between the sale consideration declared by the assessee and fair market value as determined by the DVO u/s 50C is less than 10 percent, the Assessing Officer was not justified in substituting the value determined for sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench after considering the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the provision of section 23A and 24(5) of the Wealth Tax Act held as under :-

13. Combined reading of the above provisions shows that the valuation adopted by the DVO is subject to appeal and the same is not final. In the instant case we find that as against the value of Rs.28,73,000/- adopted by the stamp valuation authorities, the DVO has determined the FMV on the date of transfer at Rs.20,55,000/-. This itself shows that there is wide variation between the two values. Further, the value adopted by the DVO is also based on some estimate. We find that the difference between sale consideration shown by the assessee at Rs.19,00,000/- and the FMV determined by the DVO at Rs.20,55,000/- is only Rs. 1,55,000 which is less than 10 per cent. The Courts and Tribunals are consistently taking a liberal approach in favour of the assessee where the difference between the value adopted by the assessee and the value adopted by the DVO is less than 10 per cent.

14. We find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT V/s. Harpreet Hotels (p) Ltd. vide ITA Nos. 1156- 1160/pn/2000 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue where the CIT(A) had deleted the unexplained investment in house construction on the ground that the difference between the figure shown by the assessee and the figure of the DVO is hardly 10 percent.

15. Similarly, we find that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO V/s. KaadduJayghoshAppasaheb, vide ITA No.441/pN/2004 for the asst. yr 1992-1993 and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee following the decision of the J&K High Court in the case of Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. V/s CIT (2002) 177 CTR (J&K) 232 had held that when the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental valuer was less than 10 per cent, the different is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the A.O cannot be sustained.

16. Since in the instant case such difference is less than 10 per cent and considering the fact that valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference bound to occur, we are of the considered opinion that the A.O.in the instant case is not justified in substituting the sale consideration at Rs.20,55,000 as Against the actual sale consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to take Rs.19,00,000/- only as the sale consideration of the property. The grounds raised bytheassessee are a accordingly allowed.”

9. The ld .A.R of the assessee has further placed reliance on the decision of Hon”ble Patna High Court in the case of Bimla Singh v/s. CIT (supra) wherein Hon”ble High Court has held that difference between the cost of construction shown by the assessee and as determined by the Assessing Officer being less than 15 percent, the same is to be ignored for the purposes of addition. High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Sadna Gupta 352 ITA 595 held that unless and until there was some other evidence to indicate that extra consideration had flowed in transaction for purchase of property, report of DVO could not form basis of any addition on part of revenue. In absence of any evidence no reliance could be placed on the report of DVO for making addition.

10. Thus, in view of the fact that the difference between sale consideration and the market value determined by the DVO is not substantial and is approximately little over 2 per cent of the actual sale consideration, we find no reason for rejecting actual sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed for determining long term capital gain. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt actual sale consideration as mentioned in the Sale Deed as a fair market value for determining the long term capital gain.”

6. In the light of the facts of the case and the decisions discussed above, we find merit in the submissions of assessee. In the present case, since difference between the value declared by the assessee and the value determined by the DVO is less than 10%, no addition in respect of Long Term Capital Gains is warranted. The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are accordingly, set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.”

It would be relevant to mention here that the afore mentioned decision was rendered with reference to provisions of Section 50C of the Act. The addition in the instant case is made u/s 43CA of the Act. I find that the provisions of both the sections are parimateria, except that the provisions of section 43CA operate in respect of consideration received on transfer of an asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both and provisions of section 50C are attracted on transfer of capital assest being land or building or both. Hence, the decision rendered u/s.50C of the Act giving leverage of minor variation, in the value declared by the assessee and the stamp duty value would equally hold good for variation in the value u/s 43CA of the Act. Thus, from the above decision it can be safely deduced that where the difference between sale consideration declared by the assessee and stamp duty value of an asset (other than capital asset) being land or building or both is less than 10%, no addition under section 43CA of the Act is warranted.

6. Here, it would be relevant to mention that the Finance Act 2018 has inserted a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA providing 5% tolerance limit in variation between declared sale consideration vis-a-vis stamp duty value for making no addition. Similar proviso was inserted by the Finance Act 2018 to sub-section(1) to section 50C of the Act. The said tolerance limit band was enhanced from 5% to 10% by the Finance Act 2020 w.e.f. 01/4/2021. The Tribunal in the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO (International Taxation) reported as  (Mumbai) after considering various decision and the CBDT Circular No.8 of 2018 dated 26-12-2018 held, that the amendment is retrospective in nature and relates back to the date of insertion of statutory section to the Act. The relevant extract of the observations made by the Bench reads as under:

7………. The insertion of the third proviso to section 50C(1) provides s for this tolerance band with respect to a certain degree of variations between the stamp duty valuation and the stated consideration of an immovable property. In other words, as long as the variations are within the permissible limits, the anti-avoidance provisions of Section 50C do not come into play. As we have noted earlier, the CBDT itself accepts that there could be various bonafide reasons explaining the small variations between the sale consideration of immovable property as disclosed by the assessee vis-a-vis the stamp duty valuation for the said immovable property. Obviously, therefore, disturbing the actual sale consideration, for the purpose of computing capital gains, and adopting a notional figure, for that purpose, will not be justified in such cases. On a conceptual note, an estimation of market price is an estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thought fully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between the stated sale consideration vis-a-vis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of adjustments contemplated in the computation of capital gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration of a property and stamp duty valuation of the same property, one cannot proceed to draw an inference against the assessee, and subject the assessee to practically prove his being truthful in stating the sale consideration. Clearly, therefore, this insertion of the third proviso to Section 50C(1) is in the nature of a remedial measure to address a bonafide situation where there is little justification for invoking an anti-avoidance provision. Similarly, so far as enhancement of tolerance band to 10% by the Finance Act 2020, is concerned, as noted in the CBDT circular itself, it was done in response to the representations of the stakeholders for enhancement in the tolerance band. Once the Government acknowledged this genuine hardship to the taxpayer and addressed the issue by a suitable amendment in law, the next question was what should be a fair tolerance band for variations in these values. As a responsive Government, which is truly the hallmark of the present Government, even though the initial tolerance band level was taken at 5%, in response to the representations by the stakeholders, this tolerance band, or safe harbor provision, was increased to 10%. There is no particular reason to justify any particular time frame for implementing this enhancement of tolerance band or safe harbour provision. The reasons assigned by the CBDT, i.e., “the variation between stamp duty value and actual consideration received can occur in respect of similar properties in the same area because of a variety of factors, including the shape of the plot or location,” was as much valid in 2003 as it is in 2021. There is no variation in the material facts in this respect in 2021vis-a-vis the material facts in 2003. What holds good in 2021 was also good in 2003. If variations upto 10% need to be tolerated and need not be probed further, under section 50C, in 2021, there were no good reasons to probe such variations, under section 50C, in the earlier periods as well. We are, therefore, satisfied that the amendment in the scheme of Section 50C(1), by inserting the third proviso thereto and by enhancing the tolerance band for variations between the stated sale consideration vis-a-vis stamp duty valuation to 10%, are curative in nature, and, therefore, these provisions, even though stated to be prospective, must be held to relate back to the date when the related statutory provision of Section 50C, i.e. 1st April 2003. In plain words, what is means is that even if the valuation of a property, for the purpose of stamp duty valuation, is 10% more than the stated sale consideration, the stated sale consideration will be accepted at the face value and the anti-avoidance provisions under section 50C will not be invoked.

8. Once legislature very graciously accepts, by introducing the legal amendments in question, that there were lacunas in the provisions of section 50C in the sense that even in the cases of genuine variations between the stated consideration and the stamp duty valuation, anti- avoidance provisions under section 50C could be pressed into service, and thus remedied the law, there is no escape from holding that these amendments are effective with effect from the date on which the related provision, i.e., Section 50C, itself was introduced. These amendments are thus held to be retrospective in effect. In our considered view, therefore, the provisions of the third proviso to Section 50C (1), as they stand now, must be held to be effective with effect from 1st April 2003. We order accordingly. Learned Departmental Representative, however, does not give up. Learned Departmental Representative has suggested that we may mention in our order that “relief is being provided as a special case and this decision may not be considered as a precedent”. Nothing can be farther from a judicious approach to the process of dispensation of justice, and such an approach, as is prayed for, is an antithesis of the principle of “equality before the law,” which is one of our most cherished constitutional values. Our judicial functioning has to be even-handed, transparent, and predictable, and what we decide for one litigant must hold good for all other similarly placed litigants as well. We, therefore, decline to entertain this plea of the assessee.” [Emphasis added now]

As has been aptly explained above, the rational for holding newly inserted proviso to sub-section (1) to section 50C of the Act as curative in nature, hence, having retrospective application, the same analogy would apply to the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act. Both the sections are similarly worded except that both the sections have application on different sets of assessee. As has been pointed earlier, Section 43CA gets attracted where the consideration received or accrues as a result of transfer of an asset (other than a capital asset) being land or building or both. Whereas, provisions of section 50C operates where the consideration received or accrues as a result of transfer of a capital asset being land or building or both. Both the sections induce deeming fiction to substitute actual sale consideration with notional value of asset based on Stamp Duty valuation. Further, a perusal of Circular 8 of 2018 (supra) would show that identical reasons have been given in Para 16 for “Rationalization of Sections 43CA and 50C”. The proviso has been inserted and subsequently tolerance bank limit has been enhanced to mitigate hardship of genuine transactions in the real estate sector. Ergo, in the light of reasoning given for insertion of the proviso and exposition by the Tribunal for retrospective application of the said proviso, I have no hesitation in holding that the proviso to sub-section

(1) to section 43CA and the subsequent amendment thereto relates back o the date on which the said section was made effective i.e. 01/4/2014.

7. In light of above findings, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.6,81,500/- under section 43CA of the Act. The impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

10. The learned Departmental Representative only submitted that during the assessment year 201718, the tolerance band was up to 5%, however, we reject his argument in view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench cited supra since the difference is below tolerance band, the entire addition of 57,68,020, is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, all the ground no.2, raised by the assessee in its appeal for the assessment year 201718 is allowed.”