INTERPLAY BETWEEN DEEMING FICTIONS OF SECTIONS 45(3) AND 50C

ISSUE FOR
CONSIDERATION

Section
45(3) of the Act provides for taxation of the capital gains on transfer of a capital
asset by a person to a firm in which he is or becomes a partner, by way of
capital contribution or otherwise, in the year of transfer and further provides
that the amount recorded in the books of accounts of the firm shall be deemed
to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of
such transfer of the capital asset for the purposes of section 48. Section 50C
of the Act provides that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the
stamp valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect
of transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, shall for the
purposes of section 48 be deemed to be the full value of the consideration
received or accruing as a result of such transfer if it is higher than its
actual consideration.

Whether both
the aforesaid provisions of the Act can be made applicable in a case where the
capital asset transferred by a partner to his firm by way of his capital
contribution is land or building or both is the issue that is sought to be
examined here. Whether for the purposes of section 48 the full value of
consideration should be the amount as recorded in the books of the firm in
accordance with the provisions of section 45(3), or whether it should be the
value as adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority in
accordance with the provisions of section 50C? Whether in computing the capital
gains, the higher of the two is to be adopted or not?

The Lucknow
bench of the Tribunal has held that the provisions of section 50C shall prevail
over the provisions of section 45(3) in a case where the stamp duty value was
higher than the value recorded in the books of the firm. As against this, the
Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Chennai benches of the Tribunal have held that
the provisions of section 45(3), ignoring the provisions of section 50C, alone
can apply in a case where land or building has been introduced by a partner by
way of his capital contribution.

THE CARLTON HOTEL
(P) LTD. CASE

The issue
first came up for consideration of the Lucknow bench of the Tribunal in the
case of Carlton Hotel (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 35 SOT 26 (Lucknow) (URO).
In this case, during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2004-05 the assessee
company entered into a partnership with two other persons. The assessee company
contributed 2,40,000 sq. ft. of land as its capital contribution which was
valued at Rs. 7,81,96,735 and was so recorded in the books of the partnership
firm. The assessee was given 5% share in the partnership firm, whereas the
other two partners were given 95% share.

For the
purposes of computing capital gains in the hands of the partner assessee on
transfer of the land to the partnership firm, the A.O. invoked the provisions
of section 50C and applied circle rates for the purpose of calculating the
consideration for transfer. He valued the consideration at Rs. 29,75,46,468
instead of Rs. 7,81,96,735 and on that basis he calculated the long-term
capital gains. The A.O. inter alia doubted the genuineness of the
introduction of land and noted that the assessee has contributed 88% of capital
in lieu of only 5% share in profits which was beyond the normal business
prudence and the transfer of the land to the firm was as good as a sale. For
the purpose of holding so, he referred to the clauses of the partnership deed
and observed that the assessee had little role to play in the partnership
business, the assessee was not a managing partner in the firm, construction on
the plot was to be carried out by another partner of the firm, the assessee was
not having any civil, criminal or financial liability, the business of the
partnership was to be exclusively carried out by other partners of the firm,
the bank account could be independently operated only by the other two
partners, whereas the assessee could operate only with joint signatures of the
other two partners; it was only the other partners who had been empowered to
introduce new partners, the assessee did not have any right over the goodwill
of the firm, was not authorised to make any change in the composition of the
board which had controlling interest in its share capital, etc.

Thus, the A.O. alleged that the
assessee had adopted a device to evade capital gains tax by showing lower value
of sale consideration in the books of the firm, whereas the actual market value
of the land was much higher as reflected from the circle rate. He relied on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs.
CTO 154 ITR 148 for the proposition that if an assessee adopts a tax
avoidance scheme, then the form can be ignored. Thus, by taking the substance
of the transaction into consideration, the market value of the land transferred
to the firm as capital contribution was adopted by invoking section 50C,
contending that mere reliance on section 45(3) in isolation would defeat the
intent and purpose of the taxing statute.

Importantly, the A.O. also took a
view that section 50C was applicable even in a situation covered by section
45(3). The A.O., ignoring the facts that the transfer of land as capital
contribution was not through a registered document and that the provisions of
section 50C were amended only thereafter to rope in even the transfer of
immovable property otherwise than through a registered document, applied the provisions
of section 50C.

Upon further appeal, the CIT(A)
confirmed the order of the A.O. confirming that the value adopted by the
assessee for transferring the land to the firm was a collusive one and that the
provision of section 50C being a specific provision was applicable even where
provisions of section 45(3) had been invoked.

Upon further appeal to the
Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the provisions of
section 45(3) and section 50C were mutually exclusive; where section 45(3) was
applicable, section 50C would not be applicable and vice versa. It was
further submitted that section 45(3) created a deeming fiction whereby the
consideration recorded by the firm in its books was deemed to be the full value
of consideration for the purpose of computing capital gains. Section 50C was
another deeming section which empowered the A.O. to substitute the valuation
done by the stamp valuation authority as sale consideration in place of
consideration shown by the parties to the transaction. Once one deeming section
was invoked, another deeming section could not be made to nullify the effect of
the earlier deeming section. The application of section 50C in such a situation
would render section 45(3) otiose. Regarding the allegation that the assessee
had entered into a collusive transaction and accordingly had shown lower value
of consideration in the books of the firm, it was submitted that the firm would
be paying tax upon its further sale by adopting the value of land as recorded
in the books and, hence, there would not be any revenue loss.

On the other hand, the Revenue
supported the order of the A.O. and the CIT(A) and claimed that the form of the
transaction had to be ignored and its substance had to be considered, since the
assessee had entered into a collusive transaction.

The Tribunal
for the reasons recorded in the order rejected one of the contentions of the
Revenue that since section 50C required adoption of the circle rates for the
purpose of levy of the stamp duty which rates, once declared, could be
‘adopted’ for the purpose of substituting the full value of consideration for
section 48 and it was not necessary that the document for transfer of asset was
actually registered before invoking section 50C.

On the issue under consideration,
however, the Tribunal held that the provisions of section 50C could be invoked
even though the case was otherwise covered under section 45(3); section 50C
would override section 45(3). Section 45(3) was a general provision, while
section 50C was a special provision which would override section 45(3). In the
final analysis, however, the Tribunal rejected the action of the A.O. in
applying the provisions of section 50C on the ground of non-registration and
non-payment of the stamp duty.

It may be noted for the record
that the Revenue had filed a further appeal before the Allahabad High Court
against the decision of the Tribunal mainly for pleading that the transaction
was a colourable transaction executed with the intention to evade the tax
liability. And the High Court upholding the contention held that there existed all
the facts and circumstances to show prima facie that the entire
transaction of contribution to partnership was a sham and fictitious
transaction and an attempt to devise a method to avoid tax and remanded the
matter back to the Tribunal to look into this aspect of the matter, which was
an issue directly raised by the Revenue right from the stage of assessment. No
findings have been given by the High Court with respect to the issue of
applicability of section 50C to the transaction of introduction of capital
asset by the partner in the firm which is otherwise covered by section 45(3).

AMARTARA PVT. LTD.
CASE

Thereafter,
the issue came up for consideration of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in DCIT
vs. Amartara Pvt. Ltd. 78 ITR (Trib.)(S.N.) 46 (Mum).

In this
case, during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2012-13 the assessee entered
into a limited liability partnership with the object of developing,
constructing and operating resorts, hotels and apartment hotels and / or for
carrying out such other hospitality businesses. The assessee transferred an
immovable property, being a plot of land admeasuring 6,869.959 metres situated
at Powai, Mumbai, as its capital contribution to the newly-created LLP vide
a supplementary agreement dated 29^th December, 2011.

The said
plot of land was valued at Rs. 5.60 crores on the basis of the valuation report
obtained and it was recorded at that value in the books of the LLP. The
assessee, while computing capital gains on transfer of land into the
partnership firm in accordance with the provisions of section 45(3), had taken
the value as recorded in the books of the firm, i.e., Rs. 5.60 crores, as the
full value of the consideration deemed to have been received or accrued as a
result of transfer of capital asset to the partnership firm. The supplementary
agreement through which the said plot of land was introduced by the assessee
into the LLP was registered on 24^th April, 2012 and the stamp duty
authority had determined the market value of the property for the purpose of
payment of stamp duty at Rs. 9,41,78,500.

The A.O.
invoked the provisions of section 50C and adopted the amount of Rs.
9,41,78,500, being the value determined by the stamp valuation authority at the
time of registration of the supplementary partnership deed, as the full value
of consideration for the purpose of computing capital gains. He observed that
the provisions of section 45(3) did not begin with a non-obstante clause
and, therefore, there was no specific mention of non-applicability of section
50C in the cases covered by section 45(3). He also relied upon the Lucknow
Tribunal decision in the case of Carlton Hotel (P) Ltd. (Supra)
for the proposition that section 50C, being a specific provision, would
override the provisions of section 45(3). The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the
A.O. by following the said decision in the case of Carlton Hotel (P) Ltd.
(Supra).

On further
appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that sections 45(3) and
45(4) were special provisions for computation of capital gains on transfer of
capital assets between the partnership firm and the partners and that both the
provisions were deeming fictions created for the purpose of taxation of
transfers of capital assets in such special cases; importing another deeming
fiction to determine the full value of consideration in such special cases was
incorrect in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT
vs. Moon Mills Ltd. 59 ITR 574. It was submitted that the decision
rendered by the Lucknow bench of the Tribunal was per incuriam, in the
light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.
Moon Mills Ltd. (Supra), as per which a deeming fiction could not be
extended by importing another deeming fiction for the purpose of determination of
the full value of consideration.

It was also
contended on behalf of the assessee that section 50C of the Act had no
application where no consideration was received or accrued, and hence,
computing full value of consideration by applying the provisions of section 50C
in a case where there was a transfer between partners and the partnership firm
without there being any actual consideration received or accrued, was
incorrect.

In reply,
the Revenue heavily relied upon the said decision of the Lucknow bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Carlton Hotel (P) Ltd. (Supra) and
contended that section 50C overrode the provisions of section 45(3) once the
document of transfer was registered as per the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908 and the stamp duty was paid for the registration of such document.

The Tribunal held that the
purpose of insertion of section 45(3) was to deal with cases of transfer
between a partnership firm and partners and in such cases the Act provided for
the computation mechanism of capital gains and also provides for consideration
to be adopted for the purpose of determination of full value of consideration.
Since the Act itself provided for deeming consideration to be adopted for the
purpose of section 48 of the Act, another deeming fiction provided by way of
section 50C could not be extended to compute the deemed full value of
consideration as a result of transfer of capital asset. It held that the
Lucknow bench had simply observed that the provisions of section 50C overrode
the provisions of section 45(3) but had not given a categorical finding.
Accordingly, the addition made towards the long-term capital gain by invoking
the provisions of section 50C
was deleted.

This decision of the Mumbai bench
of the Tribunal has been subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the cases of ACIT
vs. Moti Ramanand Sagar (ITA No. 2049/Mum/2017); ACIT vs. Kethireddy Venkata
Mohan Reddy (ITA No. 259/Hyd/2019); and ITO vs. Sheila Sen (ITA No.
554/Kol/2016).

OBSERVATIONS

The issue
under consideration arises due to two conflicting provisions of the Act which
can be invoked for a given transaction wherein the capital asset transferred by
a partner to his firm, as a capital contribution or otherwise, is land or
building. Section 45(3) provides for the amount recorded in the books of
accounts of the firm as deemed consideration. Section 50C provides for the
value adopted, assessed or assessable by stamp valuation authorities as deemed
consideration, if it exceeds the consideration received or accruing. Thus, both
the provisions deal with the determination of the full value of consideration
for the purpose of computation of capital gains by creating a deeming fiction.
Apart from considering the legislative intent behind both the provisions in
order to resolve the conflict between these two provisions, there are various
other aspects which are also required to be considered, like whether two
deeming fictions can operate simultaneously with respect to the same component
of the computation; whether one of these two provisions can be considered as a
general provision and the other one as a special provision whereby it can
override the general one; and which one will prevail if both the provisions are
required to be considered as special provisions.

Sub-section (3) was inserted in
section 45 by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from A.Y. 1988-89. Prior to the
insertion of sub-section (3), the issue of taxability of the transfer of
capital asset by a partner to his firm was decided by the Supreme Court in the
case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT 156 ITR 509. In this case,
the Supreme Court held that when the assessee brought his personal assets into
the partnership firm as his contribution to the capital, there was a transfer
of a capital asset within the meaning of the terms of section 45. This was
because the asset which was, till the date of such bringing in as firm’s
capital, an individual asset, after bringing it in became a shared asset. The
Supreme Court further held that the transfer of asset by the partner to the
firm as capital contribution would not necessarily result in receipt of any
consideration by the assessee so as to attract section 45 and the credit entry
made in the partner’s capital account in the books of the partnership firm did
not represent the true value of consideration. It was a notional value only,
intended to be taken into account at the time of determining the value of the
partner’s share in the net partnership assets on the date of dissolution or on
his retirement.

Therefore,
according to the Supreme Court, it was not correct to hold that the
consideration which a partner acquires on making over his personal asset to the
partnership firm as his contribution to its capital can fall within the
provisions of section 48. Since section 48 was fundamental to the computation
machinery incorporated in the scheme relating to determination of charge
provided in section 45, the Supreme Court held that such a case must be
regarded as falling outside the scope of capital gains taxation altogether.

It was in
this background that the legislature had introduced a specific provision so as
to bring the transfer of the capital asset by a partner to his firm to tax, as
is evident from Circular No. 495 dated 22^nd September, 1987, the
extract from which is reproduced below:

Capital
gains on transfer of firms’ assets to partners and vice versa and by way of compulsory acquisition

24.1 One of
the devices used by assessees to evade tax on capital gains is to convert an
asset held individually into an asset of the firm in which the individual is a
partner. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 has set at rest the controversy as to whether such a conversion amounts
to transfer. The Court held that such conversion fell outside the scope of
capital gains taxation. The rationale advanced by the Court is that the
consideration for the transfer of the personal asset is indeterminate, being
the right which arises or accrues to the partner during the subsistence of the
partnership to get his share of the profits from time to time and on
dissolution of the partnership to get the value of his share from the net
partnership assets.

24.2 With a
view to blocking this escape route for avoiding capital gains tax, the Finance
Act, 1987 has inserted new sub-section (3) in section 45. The effect of this
amendment is that profits and gains arising from the transfer of a capital
asset by a partner to a firm shall be chargeable as the partner’s income of the
previous year in which the transfer took place. For purposes of computing the
capital gains, the value of the asset recorded in the books of the firm on the
date of the transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration
received or accrued as a result of the transfer of the capital asset.

In view of
the above, it is clear that but for the specific provision of section 45(3),
the transfer of any capital asset by a partner to his firm could not have been
charged to tax under the head capital gains. In addition to providing for the
chargeability, section 45(3) also addresses the lacuna of the inability of
section 48 to cover such transfer within its ambit which was noticed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai (Supra), by deeming the
amount recorded in the books of accounts of the firm as the full value of
consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer.

Therefore,
it is obvious that section 45(3) needs to be invoked in order to charge the
capital gains tax in respect of transfer of a capital asset by a partner to his
firm. Having invoked the provisions of section 45(3) for the purpose of
chargeability, it needs to be applied in full and the alteration in the
computation mechanism as provided in that section also needs to be considered.
It would not be possible to invoke the provisions of section 45(3) only for the
purpose of creating a charge and, then, compute the capital gain in accordance
with the other provision, i.e., section 50C, by ignoring the computational
aspect of section 45(3) altogether.

The Mumbai
bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Prem Sagar (ITA No.
7442/Mum/2016) has held that both the limbs of section 45(3), i.e.,
charging provision and deeming fiction providing for the full value of
consideration, go hand in hand for facilitating quantification of the capital
gains tax. In case the quantification of the capital gains tax as envisaged in
section 45(3) is substituted by section 50C, then the charging to tax of the
transaction under consideration would in itself stand jeopardised and the
section would be rendered inoperative.

Having said
that the computation of capital gains needs to be made in accordance with the
provisions of section 45(3), the question may arise as to whether the amount of
consideration as decided in accordance with it can then be amended by invoking
the provisions of section 50C, in a case where the valuation adopted, assessed
or assessable by the stamp valuation authority is found to be higher than the
amount recorded in the books of the firm. For the purpose of section 50C the
comparison is required to be made between the consideration received or
accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset and the value
adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority for the
purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer. Here, the
consideration received or accruing should be the real consideration received or
accruing, and not the consideration which is deemed to have been received or
accrued. This is because the expression ‘the consideration received or accruing
as a result of the transfer’ cannot be construed to include the consideration
deemed to have been received or accrued.

Wherever
required, the legislature has included a specific reference to something which
has been deemed to be so, in addition to the reference of the same thing in
simple terms. For example, section 9 provides for incomes which shall be deemed
to accrue or arise in India under certain circumstances. For the purpose of
including such income which is deemed to accrue or arise in India within the
scope of total income, clause (b) of section 5(1) makes specific reference to
it in addition to referring to the income which accrues or arises (in real and
not on deemed basis). The relevant clause is reproduced below:

(b) accrues
or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India during such year

There was no
need to make such a specific reference to the income which is deemed to accrue
or arise in India, if a view is taken that the income which accrues or arises
in India will in any case include the income which is deemed to accrue or arise
in India. As a corollary, the expression ‘the consideration received or
accruing as a result of the transfer’ as used in section 50C cannot include the
consideration deemed to be received or accrued in terms of the provisions of
section 45(3).

Further,
section 45(3) deems the amount recorded in the books of accounts of the firm as
a consideration only for the purpose of section 48. Therefore, the deeming
fiction created in section 45(3) has limited applicability and it cannot be
extended to section 50C, to deem the amount so recorded in the books of
accounts of the firm as consideration received or accruing for the purpose of
making its comparison with the valuation adopted, assessed or assessable by the
stamp valuation authorities. As a result, the provisions of section 50C cannot
be made applicable to the transfer of a capital asset by a partner to his firm
for which the true value of consideration received or accruing cannot be
determined, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil
Siddharthbhai (Supra).

The Supreme
Court in the case of CIT vs. Moon Mills Ltd. 59 ITR 574 has held
that one fiction cannot be imported within another fiction. Two different
provisions of the Act are providing for a fiction by deeming certain amounts as
the full value of consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains
as per section 48. Section 45(3) deems the amount recorded in the books of the
firm as the full value of consideration and section 50C deems the value
adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority as the full
value of consideration. If section 50C has been made applicable over the amount
deemed to be the full value of consideration in terms of section 45(3), then it
will amount to superimposing a fiction upon a fiction – which would be contrary
to the decision of the Supreme Court.

In the case
of ITO vs. United Marine Academy 130 ITD 113 (Mum)(SB), a special
bench of the Tribunal has dealt with the interplay of deeming fictions as
provided in sections 50 and 50C and has observed as under:

For the
reasons given above and on interpretation of the relevant provisions of
sections 48, 50 and 50C, we are of the view that there are two deeming fictions
created in section 50 and section 50C. The first deeming fiction modifies the
term ‘cost of acquisition’ used in section 48 for the purpose of computing the
capital gains arising from transfer of depreciable assets, whereas the deeming
fiction created in section 50C modifies the term ‘full value of the
consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of the capital
asset’ used in section 48 for the purpose of computing the capital gains
arising from the transfer of capital asset being land or building or both. The
deeming fiction created in section 50C thus operates in a specific field which
is different from the field in which section 50 is applicable. It is thus not a
case where any supposition has been sought to be imposed on any other
supposition of law. On the other hand, there are two different fictions created
into two different provisions, and going by the legislative intentions to create
the said fictions, the same operate in different fields. The harmonious
interpretation of the relevant provisions makes it clear that there is no
exclusion of applicability of one fiction in a case where another fiction is
applicable. As a matter of fact, there is no conflict between these two legal
fictions which operate in different fields and their application in a given
case simultaneously does not result in imposition of one supposition on another
supposition of law.

Thus,
insofar as transfer of an asset forming part of a block is concerned, the
Tribunal has held that both the provisions of the Act, i.e. sections 50 and
50C, can operate simultaneously. This is primarily for the reason that they
operate in different fields of the computation of capital gains. It was
categorically observed by the Tribunal that it was not a case where any
supposition has been sought to be imposed on another supposition of law.
Therefore, the inference which can be drawn indirectly on the basis of these
observations of the special bench is that two deeming fictions cannot operate
simultaneously if they operate in the same field like in the issue under
consideration.

It is also a
settled principle of interpretation that if a special provision is made on a
certain matter, the matter is excluded from the general provisions. This
principle is expressed in the maxims Generalia specialibus non derogant
(general things do not derogate from special things) and Generalibus
specialia derogant (special things derogate from general things).

However, it won’t be correct to
claim here that either of the two sections is a special one and, hence, it
overrides the other. Section 45(3) is a special provision insofar as
computation of capital gains resulting from capital contribution made by a
partner to the firm is concerned, and section 50C is a special provision
insofar as transfer of immovable property is concerned. Therefore, the issue
can better be resolved having regard to the other considerations as discussed
instead of merely relying upon these principles of interpretation.

In Canora
Resources Ltd., In Re 180 Taxman 220, the AAR was dealing with a case
where the transfer pricing provisions contained in sections 92 to 92F were also
becoming applicable to the transaction of the type which was covered by section
45(3). In this case, the AAR rejected the contention of the assessee that
section 45(3) being a special provision shall prevail over the general
provisions of sections 92 to 92F with regard to the transfer pricing.
Considering the purpose for which the transfer pricing provisions have been
made, the AAR held that section 45(3) would not apply to international
transactions and they should be dealt with in accordance with the transfer
pricing provisions. Insofar as such purposive interpretation is concerned with
respect to the issue under consideration, recently, the Chennai bench of the
Tribunal in the case of Shri Sarrangan Ashok vs. ITO (ITA No.
544/Chny/2019) has held that had it been the intention of the
legislature to make section 50C applicable even to the transaction of the
contribution of immovable property by a partner into the firm, the Parliament
could have repealed section 45(3) while introducing the provisions of section
50C. However, the fact that Parliament in its wisdom had retained section 45(3)
shows that Parliament intended to apply only the provisions of section 45(3) to
such transfer of capital assets by the partner to his firm.