The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had issued a direction that: "where a co-owner has transferred only a portion of that mutual property it cannot be presumed that the entire difference (between SDV and cost-of-purchase) of entire property will constitute income of that co-owner." The Bench arrived at this decision based upon Really there was a taxpayer in Mumbai who, in 2017, had owned jointly, with his wife, a flat in Chembur.
The property in fact cost Rs 60 lakh and the stamp duty valuation was Rs 94.8 lakh. There was a difference of Rs 34.8 lakh between the purchase price at Rs 60 lakh and the stamp duty valuation.
The I-T Officer fully included this quantum of difference as the husband's income while making the tax assessment by the Income Tax Officer ( I-T Officer) and yet the actual share in ownership of the husband was read more) this one is a typical example of how the tax authorities would treat the equal interest/shares of the co-owners for determining the taxable income from the property transactions when the amount received from sale is less than the stamp-duty value.
Husband Held Only 41 percent share
That's why, the entire share of the husband in the property jointly held was only to the extent of 41.08% which can be seen from the records maintained. Husband and wife set up joint ownership of this flat in Chembur and the flat was owned jointly by both. Purchased by a couple, the property was purchased for Rs 60 lakh with stamp-duty valuation of Rs 94.
80 lakh, this way creating a differential of Rs 34.80 lakh between the purchase price and the stamp-duty valuation. If we take into account the value of the share in the land of the husband, then the difference amounted to Rs 14.30 lakhs.
However, the Income Tax Officer treated the entire Rs 34.80 lakh difference as the husband's taxable income. The officer's reasoning was that the wife's case had not been examined separately by the tax department.
The appellate authority also considered the issue and observed that taxing only the husband's proportionate share could leave the remaining amount untaxed, since no corresponding assessment had been made in the wife's case.
The Mumbai ITAT, however, did not accept this approach. The tribunal noted that the ownership shares in the property had been clearly recorded. The mere fact that the tax department had not proceeded against the wife could not justify adding the entire difference between the purchase price and stamp-duty value to the husband's income.
The tribunal therefore emphasised that the documented ownership share of each co-owner has to be considered when determining the tax implications of such a valuation difference. The absence of an assessment against another co-owner does not, by itself, provide sufficient grounds for transferring the entire disputed amount to one co-owner.
ITAT Rejects Entire Addition to One Co-Owner
The tribunal's decision provides clarity on how tax authorities should approach jointly owned properties when there is a difference between the actual purchase consideration and the stamp-duty value.
A co-owner's tax liability cannot simply be determined by shifting the entire disputed amount to that person because the other co-owner has not been assessed.
In this case, the husband's recorded ownership was 41.08%. Therefore, the tax assessment could not ignore the established ownership structure and automatically attribute the entire Rs 34.8 lakh difference to him.
The ruling reinforces the principle that taxation should correspond with the facts of the transaction and the respective interests of the parties involved.
For property buyers purchasing homes jointly with spouses, family members or other co-owners, the case demonstrates why ownership percentages and transaction documents can become important when a property transaction is subsequently examined by tax authorities.
Property's Actual Market Value Was Also Disputed
The case involved another important issue concerning the difference between purchase consideration and stamp-duty value.
The taxpayer argued that the stamp-duty valuation did not accurately represent the property's actual market value. Among the factors cited was the absence of an occupation certificate for the flat.
The taxpayer also pointed out that certain basic amenities were unavailable. These factors, according to the taxpayer, affected the property's actual market value and explained why the purchase price was lower than the stamp-duty valuation.
The taxpayer had also requested that the valuation be referred to a Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). This request became an important part of the tribunal's consideration.
ITAT Says Valuation Dispute Needed Proper Examination
The Mumbai ITAT accepted the taxpayer's contention that the stamp-duty valuation had been challenged and valuation material furnished.
On the facts, the tribunal observed that in such circumstances I-T Officer should have referred the case to DVO before working out the taxable difference.
Bypasses in reality, rather than simply accepting the stamp duty valuation after an adequate check on the taxpayer's protests, the valuation controversy needed to be resolved; the ITAT because of this, annulled the revision order and remitted back the case to I-T Officer.
So the tribunal did not merely determine the final taxable sum in favor of the taxpayer. Instead, it ceded the matter back to the tax department to reassess after due investigation into the valuation conflict and underlying facts.
The decision is also of importance when talking about joint purchasers of property when the contract price differs a lot from the stamp-duty valuation of the property. The first is the importance of co-ownership in taxing liability.
When people joint- own a property and each track their shares, you cannot simply assess one of them for the whole difference because the other owner hasn't been assessed. The second lesson relates to disputes over stamp-duty valuation.
Where a taxpayer, whose stamp-duty value is not reflective of the true value of the property, disputes this, he or she can challenge the valuation by adducing evidence.bIn Chembur case the taxpayer had relied upon various points including non-availability of an occupation certificate and the absence of some basic amenities.
He sought a value from DVO. The ITAT decided that this kind of contest should be given due attention rather than closed out during the evaluation.
Why Stamp-Duty Value Can Become a Tax Issue?
Stamp-duty values are used by authorities for property registration and can also have tax implications in situations where there is a substantial difference between the declared transaction value and the prescribed property valuation.
A buyer may agree to purchase a property below the applicable stamp-duty value for several reasons. The condition of the property, missing approvals, lack of amenities, location-specific factors or other circumstances may affect the price agreed between the buyer and seller.
However, a difference between the transaction price and stamp-duty value can attract scrutiny.
The ITAT ruling indicates that tax authorities should examine the circumstances of the transaction and the evidence presented by the taxpayer rather than relying solely on the fact that a stamp-duty value is higher.
Importance of Documentation of Property Ownership
The present case also serves as an example of the importance of documentation during purchase of jointly-owned property.
It is important that the purchase deed or any other relevant document contains the information about the ownership percentage of each co-owner. Any other relevant documentation about the property will also matter if the transaction has to be proved in any legal context.
In relation to joint purchases, this case emphasizes the need to determine the ownership percentages in the early stages itself.
When one co-owner owns 41.08% and the rest owns the remaining, the treatment of the disputed property valuation for the purpose of taxation cannot overlook such details.
ITAT Ruling Offers Clarity on Joint Property Tax Disputes
The Mumbai ITAT's decision provides two important points for property buyers.
First, the entire difference between the purchase price and stamp-duty value cannot automatically be attributed to one co-owner simply because the other co-owner was not assessed. The documented ownership shares have to be considered.
Second, a genuine dispute over stamp-duty valuation requires proper examination, particularly when the taxpayer provides supporting material and requests a reference to the DVO.
The case has therefore brought attention to the distinction between the property's registered stamp-duty value and its actual market circumstances. It also reinforces the need for tax assessments to consider the ownership structure of jointly purchased property.
For homebuyers, especially those purchasing property with spouses or family members, the ruling serves as a reminder to retain clear records of ownership percentages, purchase consideration, property conditions and valuation-related evidence. These documents can become significant if tax authorities later question the difference between the property's declared purchase price and its stamp-duty value.
Image- magnific.com
