Zain Constructions. v. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 82 (Mag.) (Bom.) (HC) / Editorial, SLP of revenue is dismissed (2020) 269 Taxman 274 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Survey-Merely on the basis of statement of partner addition cannot be made in respect of difference between stamp valuation and sale price of property on basis of such offering made by partner-Reassessment was quashed. [S. 43C, 45, 133A, 148]

AO reopened the completed assessment. On writ the Court held that the assessee did not make voluntary surrender of any additional income.  Partner never admitted that flats were sold at a price higher than what was reflected in documents. Court held that the entire approach of the Assessing Officer is wholly incorrect. As is well known, section 50C would enable the revenue to bring to tax by way of deemed capital gain difference between the stamp valuation and the sale price of a capital asset. For obvious reasons, this provision of section 50C would not apply in case of a builder for whom immovable property is in nature of stock-in-trade and not capital asset. To overcome this difficulty, the legislature had inserted section 43CA under Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1-4-2014. This provision would enable the revenue to tax the income arising out of sale of stock by a deeming fiction where subject to certain conditions, stamp valuation of such stock would substitute the actual receipt thereof. In absence of any such statutory provisions, giving rise to the deeming fiction, the revenue cannot tax any amount which has not been received by a seller of an immovable property at the time of sale.  In plain terms, in this statement, the partner never admitted that the flats were sold at a price higher than what was reflected in the document. However, in absence of voluntary surrender by the assessee of any additional income, it was simply not possible for the revenue to make any addition on the ground of the difference between the stamp valuation and the sale price of the property in question. As noted, section 43CA was inserted with effect from 1-4-2014 and therefore, had no applicability to the assessment year in question. The attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to make the addition with the aid of the statement of the partner of the assessee and reference to the correct stamp valuation, is simply invalid. What the Assessing Officer wishes to do is to adopt a stamp valuation for the properties in question, superimpose the statement of the partner of the assessee of the declaration of certain additional income and extrapolate such statement to fit within the scheme of section 43CA.  Accordingly the notice of reopening of assessment is set aside. Consequently, the order of assessment is rendered invalid. (AY. 2013-14)