2018 (10) TMI 1885 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - decision of the Assessing Officer not granting exemption under section 54B of the Act and the other being the applicability of section 50C of the Act in relation to sell of land by the petitioner - HELD THAT - As petitioner submitted that he does not dispute the Commissioner's order in connection with the claim of the petitioner under section 54 of the Act. However, with respect to revised capital gain under section 50C of the Act, counsel relied on the 1st proviso to subsection (1) of section 50C of the Act which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2000, as per which, if the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Counsel pointed out that the requirement of the further proviso for applicability of the said proviso viz. that the payment should have been made through account payee cheque or bank draft or through electronic clearance system was satisfied in the present case. According to the petitioner therefore the Jantri rates as revised on the date of registration of the sale deed could not have been taken into account. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner in the impugned order though recorded this contention, did not decide the same. NOTICE, returnable on 29.10.2018

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order rejecting revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Dispute regarding exemption under section 54B of the Act and applicability of section 50C in relation to the sale of land.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order rejecting the revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The Commissioner decided the revision petition on merits despite the delay. The petitioner raised two issues: non-granting of exemption under section 54B and the applicability of section 50C to the sale of land. The counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the Commissioner's decision on the section 54 claim but contested the revised capital gain under section 50C. The counsel relied on the 1st proviso to subsection (1) of section 50C, emphasizing that the requirement for the proviso's applicability was met in the present case. The contention was that the Jantri rates revised on the sale deed registration date should have been considered, which the Commissioner did not address in the impugned order.

2. The counsel pointed out the insertion of the proviso to section 50C with effect from 01.04.2000, allowing the consideration value assessed by the stamp valuation authority on the agreement date to be used for computing the full value of consideration if certain conditions, including payment through specific means, were fulfilled. The petitioner argued that the Jantri rates revised on the registration date should have been used, as the payment method requirement was met. However, the Commissioner did not address this argument in the order. A notice returnable on 29.10.2018 was issued, permitting direct service for further proceedings.