By Ajay R. Singh
Advocate
9. M/s. J.S. & M.F. Builders vs. A.K. Chauhan and others [Writ Petition
No. 788 of 2001 A.Ys.: 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 Date of order: 12th
June, 2020 (Bombay High Court)
Reopening – Capital gains arising on conversion of the land into
stock-in-trade – Closing stock has to be valued at cost or market price
whichever is lower – No reason to believe income had escaped assessment –
Reopening bad in law: Sections 45(2) and 147 of the Act
The petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the four
impugned notices, all dated 25th February, 2000 issued u/s 148 of
the Act, proposing to re-assess the income of the petitioner for the A.Ys.
1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 on the ground that income chargeable to
tax for the said assessment years had escaped assessment.
The case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm constituted by
a deed of partnership dated 21st October, 1977. The object of the
firm is to carry out business as builders and developers.
An agreement was entered into on 8th November, 1977 between one
Mr. Krishnadas Kalyanji Dasani and the petitioner whereby and whereunder Mr.
Dasani agreed to sell, and the petitioner agreed to purchase, a property
situated at Borivali admeasuring approximately 6,173.20 square metres. The
property consisted of seven structures and two garages. The property was
mortgaged and all the tenements were let out. The aggregate consideration for
the purchase was Rs. 3,00,000 and a further expenditure of Rs. 44,087 was
incurred by way of stamp duty and registration charges. The said property was
purchased subject to all encumbrances. The purchased property was reflected in
the balance sheets of the petitioner drawn up thereafter as a fixed asset. For
almost a decade after purchase, the petitioner entered into various agreements
with the tenants to get the property vacated. In the process, they incurred a
further cost of Rs. 9,92,427.
In the balance sheet as on 30th September, 1987 the Borivali
property was shown as a fixed asset the value of which was disclosed at Rs.
13,36,514; a detailed break-up of it was furnished. With effect from 1st
October, 1987, the petitioner converted a portion of the property into
stock-in-trade and continued to retain that part of the property which still
remained tenanted as a fixed asset. The market value of the entire Borivali
property as on 1st October, 1987 was arrived at Rs. 69,38,000 out of
which the value of the property that was converted into stock-in-trade was
determined at Rs. 66,29,365.
The petitioner thereafter demolished the vacant structures and commenced
construction of a multi-storied building. In the balance sheet as on 31st
March, 1989, the petitioner reflected the tenanted property as a fixed asset at
a cost of Rs. 2,86,740 and the stock-in-trade at a value of Rs. 66,29,365.. A
revaluation reserve of Rs. 55,58,759 was also credited. In the Note
accompanying the computation of income it was clearly mentioned that the
conversion of a part of the Borivali property was made into stock-in-trade and
the liability to tax u/s 45(2) of the Act would arise as and when the flats
were sold. During the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 1992-93, the
petitioner had entered into 14 agreements for sale of 14 flats, the total area
of which admeasured 10,960 square feet (sq. ft.).
For the A.Y. 1992-93 the petitioner declared income chargeable under the
head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ at Rs. 9,37,385 and the
income chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’ at Rs. 8,10,993. The ‘capital
gains’ was arrived at by determining the difference between the market value of
the land converted into stock-in-trade as on 1st October, 1987 and
the cost incurred by the petitioner which came to a figure of Rs. 55,87,591.
Having regard to the total built-up area of 37,411 sq. ft., the ‘capital gains’
per sq. ft. was computed at Rs. 149.36 on a pro-rata basis. Accordingly,
having regard to the area of 10,960 sq. ft. sold, the ‘capital gains’ was
determined at Rs. 16,36,986. Along with the return of income, a computation of
income as well as an audit report in terms of section 44AB of the Act were also
filed. The A.O. completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the
petitioner at the income of Rs. 17,85,560.
For the A.Y. 1993-94, as in the previous A.Y., income was computed both
under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’ as well as under
the head ‘capital gains’ for 12 flats sold during the relevant previous year.
The return was accompanied by the tax audit report as well as the profit and
loss account and balance sheet. The A.O. completed the assessment u/s 143(3)
assessing the petitioner at an income of Rs. 17,30,230. It is stated that in
the assessment order the A.O. specifically noted that income from ‘long-term
capital gains’ was declared in terms of section 45(2) of the Act.
The petitioner’s return of income for the A.Y. 1994-95 was processed u/s
143(1)(a) of the Act and an intimation was issued on 30th March,
1995.
For the A.Y. 1995-96, the petitioner filed its return declaring income
under both heads, i.e., ‘income from business’ and ‘capital gains’. The income
of the petitioner was computed in a similar manner as in the earlier years with
similar disclosures in the tax audit report, profit and loss account and
balance sheet furnished along with the return. In the course of the assessment
proceedings, the petitioner furnished details of flats sold as well as the
manner of computing profit in terms of section 45(2). The assessment for the
A.Y. 1995-96 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the taxable income
at Rs. 1,32,930.
According to the petitioner, it received on 8th March, 2000 four notices, all dated 25th
February, 2000, issued u/s 148 of the Act for the four assessment years, i.e.,
1992-93 to 1995-96.
The reasons recorded for each of the assessment
years were identical save and except the assessment details and figures. The
A.O. broadly gave four reasons to justify initiation of re-assessment
proceedings. Firstly, the petitioner was not justified in assuming that the
market value of the stock adopted as on 1st October, 1987 would
continue to remain static in the subsequent years. In other words, the closing
stock of the land should have been valued at the market price as on the date of
closing of accounts for the year concerned. This resulted in undervaluation of
closing stock and consequent reduction of profit.
Secondly, even though the petitioner might have entered into agreements and
sold certain flats, the ownership of the land continued to remain with the
petitioner. The whole of the land under the ownership of the petitioner
constituted its stock-in-trade and it should have been valued at the market
price as on the date of closing of accounts for the year concerned. Thus, the
assessee had suppressed the market price of the closing stock, thereby reducing
the profit.
Thirdly, for the purpose of computing the ‘capital gains’ in terms of
section 45(2) of the Act, the petitioner was not justified in taking the cost
of the entire land; rather, the petitioner ought to have taken only a fraction
of the original cost of Rs. 3,00,000. Thus, there was inflation of cost.
Lastly, in terms of section 45(2), the ‘capital gains’ arising on conversion of
the land into stock-in trade ought to have been assessed only in the year in
which the land was sold or otherwise transferred. As the land was not conveyed
to the co-operative society, the petitioner was not justified in offering to
tax the ‘capital gains’ in terms of section 45(2) of the Act on the basis of
the flats sold during each of the previous years relevant to the four A.Y.s
under consideration.
The Court admitted the writ petition for final hearing.
The petitioner submitted that it had fully complied with the requirement of
section 45(2) of the Act and the capital gains arising on the conversion of the
land into stock-in-trade was offered and rightly assessed to tax in the years
in which the flats were sold on the footing that on the sale of the flat there
was also a proportionate sale of the land. This methodology adopted by the
petitioner is in accordance with law. It was also submitted that it is not
correct to think that any profit arises out of the valuation of the closing
stock. In this connection, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme
Court in Chainrup Sampatram vs. CIT, 24 ITR 481.
The Petitioner also referred to a decision of this Court in CIT vs.
Piroja C. Patel, 242 ITR 582 to contend that the expenditure incurred
for having the land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement which
is an allowable expenditure.
The case of the Revenue was that the A.O. after recording the sequence of
events from acquiring the property vide the deed of conveyance dated 23rd
April, 1980 noted that the assessee had converted part of the property
into stock-in-trade on 1st October, 1987 with a view to construct
flats. On the date of conversion into stock-in-trade, the value thereof was
determined at Rs. 66,29,365. Up to A.Y.1991-92 there was no construction. After
the building was constructed, the constructed flats were sold to various
customers. On the sale of flats, the assessee reduced the proportionate market
value of the land as on 31st March, 1989, in the same ratio as the
area of the flat sold bore to the total constructed area. However, the assessee
valued the closing stock at market price prevailing as on 1st
October, 1987. According to the A.O., the closing stock should have been valued
at the market price on the close of each accounting year. This resulted in
undervaluation of closing stock and consequent reduction of profit.
Secondly, land as an asset is separate and distinct from the building. The
building was shown as a work in progress in the profit and loss account
prepared by the assessee and filed with the return. Even after construction of
the building and sale of flats, the stock, i.e., the land was still under the
ownership of the assessee. Ownership of land was not transferred. As the land
continued under the ownership of the assessee, its value could not be reduced
on the plea that a flat was sold. The whole of the land under ownership of the
assessee constituted its stock-in-trade and it should have been valued at the
market price as on the date of closing of the accounts for the year under
consideration. Therefore, the A.O. alleged that the assessee had suppressed the
market price of the closing stock, thus reducing the profit.
The third ground given was regarding computation of ‘capital gains’
furnished with the return of income. The A.O. noted that the total capital
gains as on 1st October, 1987 was arrived at by deducting the cost
of the land as on 1st October, 1987, i.e., Rs. 10,41,774, from the
fair market value of the land, i.e., Rs. 66,29,365, which came to Rs.
55,87,591. According to the A.O., the assessee made deduction of the cost
incurred for the entire land whereas only a fraction of the said land was
converted into stock-in-trade where construction was done.
The A.O. worked out that the cost of the converted piece of land was only
Rs. 13,260. He arrived at this figure by deducting Rs. 2,86,740, which was the
value of the tenanted property from the cost of the property, i.e., Rs.
3,00,000. Thus, he alleged that there was inflation of cost by Rs. 10,28,514
(Rs. 10,41,774 – Rs.13,260).
The last ground given by the A.O. was regarding offering of long-term
capital gain by the assessee. He noted that for the purpose of computation of
long-term capital gain, the assessee estimated the fair market value of the
land converted to stock as on 1st October, 1987 at Rs. 66,29,365
which was reduced by the cost incurred as on 1st October, 1987,
i.e., Rs. 10,74,774. However, the A.O. also noted that the method of
computation of cost was not clear in view of the fact that the whole of the
land with tenanted structures was purchased for Rs. 3,00,000. The A.O. further
noted the methodology adopted by the assessee for computation of long-term
capital gain. According to him, the assessee had worked out the difference
between the fair market value of the land converted to stock and the cost and
thereafter divided it by the total permissible built-up area. The quotient was
identified by the assessee as capital gains per sq. ft. The assessee thereafter
multiplied the built-up area of individual flats sold with such quotient and
claimed it to be the ‘capital gains’ for the year under consideration. By
adopting such a computation, the assessee was claiming sale of land in
different years in the same ratio as the area of flat sold bore to the total
permissible FSI area. But this calculation was not accepted by the A.O.
primarily on the ground that land as a stock was different from the flats.
Selling of flats did not amount to selling of proportionate quantity of land.
The Court held that u/s 45(2) of the Act, ‘capital gains’ for land should
be considered in the year when land was sold or otherwise transferred by the
assessee. Though flats were sold, ownership of the land continued to remain
with the assessee. ‘Capital gains’ would be chargeable to tax only in the year
when the land was sold or transferred to the co-operative society formed by the
flat purchasers and not in the year when individual flats were sold.
The Court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the A.O. proceeded
on the erroneous presumption that stock-in-trade had to be valued at the
present market value. In Chainrup Sampatram (Supra), the Supreme
Court had held that it would be wrong to assume that the valuation of the
closing stock at market rate has for its object the bringing into charge any
appreciation in the value of such stock. The true purpose of crediting the
value of unsold stock is to balance the cost of those goods entered on the
other side of the account so that the cancelling out of the entries relating to
the same stock from both sides of the account would leave only the transactions
on which there had been actual sales in the course of the year showing the
profit or loss actually realised on the year’s trading. While anticipated loss
is taken into account, anticipated profit in the shape of appreciated value of
the closing stock is not brought into the account as no prudent trader would
care to show increased profit before its actual realisation. This is the theory
underlying the rule that the closing stock has to be valued at cost or market
price whichever is lower and it is now generally accepted as an established
rule of commercial practice and accountancy. In such circumstances, taking the
view that profits for income tax purposes are to be computed in conformity with
the ordinary principles of commercial accounting unless such principles have
been superseded or modified by legislative enactments, the Supreme Court held
that it would be a misconception to think that any profit arises out of
valuation of the closing stock.
With regard to the third ground, i.e., computation of ‘capital gains’, the
Court held that the cost incurred included not only the sale price of the land,
i.e., Rs. 3,00,000, but also the expenditure incurred by way of stamp duty and
registration charges amounting to Rs. 44,087. That apart, the assessee had
incurred a further sum of Rs. 9,92,427 in getting the entire property vacated.
The contention of the A.O. that there was inflation of cost is not correct.
Thus, for computing the income under the head ‘capital gains’, the full value
of consideration received as a result of transfer of the capital asset shall be
deducted by the expenditure incurred in connection with such transfer, cost of
acquisition of the asset and the cost incurred in improvement of the asset. The
expression ‘the full value of the consideration’ would mean the fair market
value of the asset on the date of such conversion. The meaning of the
expressions ‘cost of improvement’ and ‘cost of acquisition’ are explained in
sections 55(1) and 55(2) of the Act, respectively.
The expression ‘capital asset’ occurring in sub-section (1) of section 45
is defined in sub-section (14) of section 2. ‘Capital asset’ means property of
any kind held by an assessee whether or not connected with his business or
profession as well as any securities held by a foreign institutional investor,
but does not include any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw materials,
personal effects, etc.
Again, the word ‘transfer’ occurring in sub-section (1) of section 45 has
been defined in section 2(47) of the Act. As per this definition, ‘transfer’ in
relation to a capital asset includes sale, exchange or relinquishment of the
asset or the extinguishment of any rights therein, or compulsory acquisition of
the asset, or in case of conversion of the asset by the owner into
stock-in-trade of the business carried on by him, such conversion or any
transaction involving the allowing of possession of any immovable property to
be taken or retained in part performance of a contract, or any transaction
whether by way of becoming a member of or acquiring shares in a co-operative
society, etc. which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of
any immovable property.
In the case of Miss Piroja C. Patel (Supra), the court held
that on eviction of the hutment dwellers from the land in question, the value
of the land increases and therefore the expenditure incurred for having the
land vacated would certainly amount to cost of improvement.
Thus, the cost incurred on stamp duty, etc., together with the cost
incurred in carrying out eviction of the hutment dwellers would certainly add
to the value of the asset and thus amount to cost of improvement which is an
allowable deduction from the full value of consideration received as a result of
the transfer of the capital asset for computing the income under the head
‘capital gains’.
Insofar as the fourth ground is concerned, the A.O. has taken the view that
long-term capital gains arising out of sale or transfer of land would be
assessed to tax only in the year in which the land is sold or otherwise
transferred by the assessee. Opining that land as a stock is a different item
of asset than a flat, the A.O. held that ownership of land continued to remain
with the assessee notwithstanding the sale of flats. Therefore, he was of the view
that ‘capital gains’ would be chargeable to tax only in the year when the land
is sold or otherwise transferred to the co-operative society formed by owners
of the flats and not in the year when individual flats are sold.
According to the A.O., the assessee had erred in
offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were
sold, whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land
was transferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If
the assessee had offered to tax as ‘capital gains’ in the assessment years
under consideration that which should have been offered to tax in the
subsequent years, it is beyond comprehension as to how a belief can be formed
that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year under consideration had
escaped assessment. That apart, the flat purchasers by purchasing the flats had
certainly acquired a right or interest in the proportionate share of the land
but its realisation is deferred till the formation of the
co-operative society by the owners of the flats and eventual transfer of the
entire property to the co-operative society.
The Court also referred to various other decisions, namely, Prashant
S. Joshi [324 ITR 154 (Bom)], Additional CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai, 165 ITR
166 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT, 156 ITR 509 (SC) and
Addanki Narayanappa vs. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300, wherein
the Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely
his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is
the interest which the partner enjoys in the assets during the subsistence of
the partnership by virtue of his status as a partner and in terms of the
partnership agreement. Therefore, what the partner gets upon dissolution of the
partnership or upon retirement from the partnership is the realisation of a
pre-existing right or interest. The Court held that there was nothing strange
in the law that a right or interest should exist in praesenti but
its realisation or exercise should be postponed. Applying the above principle,
the Court held that upon purchase of the flat, the purchaser certainly acquires
a right or interest in the proportionate share of the land but its realisation
is deferred till formation of the co-operative society by the flat owners and
transfer of the entire property to the co-operative society.
Thus, on an overall consideration of the entire matter, the Court held
that there was no basis or justification for the A.O. to form a belief that any
income of the assessee chargeable to tax for the A.Y.s under consideration had
escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The reasons
rendered could not have led to formation of any belief that income had escaped
assessment within the meaning of the aforesaid provision.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned
notices issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 25th February, 2000 were set
aside and quashed.
