Section 50C – Third proviso to section 50C inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 2019 providing for a safe harbour of 5%, is retrospective in operation and will apply since date of introduction of section 50C, i.e., w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, since the proviso is curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assessees

13. 
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT (Kol.) Members: A.T. Varkey (JM) and Dr. A.L. Saini
(AM) ITA No. 2351/Kol./2017 A.Y.: 2014-15 Date of order: 9^th August, 2019; Counsel for Assesssee / Revenue: Manoj
Kataruka / Robin Chowdhury

Section 50C – Third proviso to section 50C
inserted w.e.f. 1^st April, 2019 providing for a safe harbour of 5%,
is retrospective in operation and will apply since date of introduction of
section 50C, i.e., w.e.f. 1^st April, 2003, since the proviso is
curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assessees

FACTS

The assessee in his return of income
declared total income to be Nil and claimed current year’s loss to be Rs. 1,19,46,383. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that
the assessee had on 14^th December, 2013 transferred his property at
Pretoria Street, Kolkata for a consideration of Rs. 3,15,00,000 and had
declared long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,22,63,576 on transfer thereof. The
stamp duty value (SDV) of this property was Rs. 3,27,01,950. In response to the
show cause notice issued by the AO as to why the SDV should not be adopted as
full value of consideration, the assessee asked the AO to make a reference to
the DVO to ascertain the fair market value of the property. Accordingly, the
reference was made but the DVO did not submit his report within the specified
time and the AO completed the assessment by adopting SDV to be the full value
of consideration.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal
to the CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee then preferred
an appeal to the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal observed that:

(i) the fundamental purpose of introducing
section 50C was to counter suppression of sale consideration on sale of
immovable properties, and this section was introduced in the light of the
widespread belief that sale transactions of land and buildings are often
undervalued resulting in leakage of legitimate tax revenues;

(ii) the variation between SDV and the sale
consideration arises because of many factors;

(iii) Stamp duty value and the sale
consideration, these two values represent the values at two different points
of time;

(iv) in order to minimise hardship in case
of genuine transactions in the real estate sector, it was proposed by the
Finance Act, 2018 that no adjustments shall be made in a case where the
variation between the SDV and the sale consideration is not more than 5% of the
sale consideration. This amendment is with effect from 1^st April,
2019 and applies to assessment year 2019-20 and subsequent years;

(v) the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT
Mumbai, in the case of John Fowler (India) Ltd. in ITA No.
7545/Mum./2014, for AY 2010-11, order dated 25.1.2017 held that if the
difference between valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and
declared by the assessee is less than 10%, the same should be ignored and no
adjustments shall be made.

The Tribunal noted that the amendment made
by the Finance Act, 2018 is introduced only with prospective effect from 1^st
April, 2019. It noted that the observations in the memorandum explaining the
provisions of the Finance Bill, 2018 make it abundantly clear that the
amendment is made to remove an incongruity, resulting in undue hardship to the
assessee. Relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs. Ansal Landmark Township (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that once it is
not in dispute that a statutory amendment is made to remove an apparent
incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on
which the law containing such an undue hardship or incongruity was introduced.

The Tribunal held that the insertion of the
third proviso to section 50C of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature.
The third proviso relates to computation of value of property and hence is not
a substantive amendment, it is only a procedural amendment and therefore the
co-ordinate Benches of ITAT used to ignore the variation of up to 10%, and
hence the said amendment should be retrospective. The third proviso to section
50C should be treated as curative in nature with retrospective effect from 1^st
April, 2003,. i.e., the date from which section 50C was introduced.

Since the difference between the SDV and the
consideration was less than 5%, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the
AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

This ground of
the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.