9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s less than 5%, the transaction would fall in the safe harbour in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 50C HELD THAT:- We are of the view that apart from the fact that the petitioner has approached this court after nearly five months from the date when the order u/s 148A(d) was passed, there are aspects which the AO needs to enquire into. Having regard the fact that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 23.03.2023, the AO may have made some progress in the matter. If we were to interdict the proceedings at this stage, against the backdrop of what has been noted hereinabove, it may, in real terms, neither help the cause of the petitioner/assessee nor the respondent/revenue. Respondent is right that this is one of those rare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 3. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 15.03.2023, under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, Act ]. 4. Principally, two allegations were levelled against the petitioner/assessee. 4.1 First, it had sold the subject immovable property i.e., 53, Ground Floor, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [hereafter referred to as ground floor property ] for an amount which was less than stamp duty value, in contravention of the provisions of Section 50C read with Section 43CA of the Act. The information value concerning the aforesaid property was pegged at Rs. 1,30,29,000/-. 4.2 Second, the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that it had received Rs. 1,25,00,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... litigation, the buyers are unwilling to perform the agreement. 9. The record shows that the agreement to sell dated 26.03.2019, based on which the said transaction is said to have progressed, is an unregistered document. 9.1 A perusal of clause 2 of the said document would show that the petitioner/assessee has already delivered physical vacant possession of the basement property. 10. Given this position, Mr Kapil Goel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/assessee, says that the allegation made against the petitioner/assessee is unsustainable as the first transaction concerning the ground floor property falls within the tolerance limit provided in the 3rd proviso appended to Section 50C of the Act. 10.1 As far as the basemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply, as the petitioner/assessee has already delivered possession of the same. 13. In other words, as per the said provision, since the petitioner/assessee has parted with the possession of the basement property, the transfer has been effected. 14. Mr Chandra says that insofar as approval is concerned, the same has not been given and that the document will be furnished at the earliest. 15. As regards the submission of Mr Goel that the respondent/revenue should have continued with the regime provided pursuant to the insertion of Section 151A of the Act, Mr Chandra says that he has received instructions that compliance with regard to the faceless assessment regime has been made. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
