Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 50c in Prabhudas Veljibhai Chaudhari vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 on 18 January, 2021Matching Fragments
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of Respondent at Annexure - H. B) this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to hold that Rs.48,48,309/- is wrongly added u/s. 50C in the hands of the petitioner or in the alternative this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay in filing the application before the Respondent and set aside the proceedings to the Respondent to be decided afresh on the issue of Section 50C with a direction that the same may be considered on merits.
2. Counsel for the 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.
7. Mr. Manish Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant would submit that he is confining his case only to Section 50C of the Act. According to him, the Principal Commissioner has not recorded any finding, as regards Section 50C of the Act and for this limited purpose, the matter may be remitted so that the issue of Section 50C can be considered.
8. Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that as the only issue that needs to be now to be decided is with regard to Section 50C of the Act, let the matter be sent back to the Principal Commissioner.
9. For the forgoing reasons, this writ application succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Ahmedabad dated 19th March, 2018, Annexure - H to this writ application, page-99, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Ahmedabad for the purpose of adjudicating the issue with regard to Section 50C of the Act.
10.At this stage, we may once clarify again so that there may not be any confusion in future that the issue with regard to limitation stands concluded. The issue with regard to limitation shall not be re-opened by the Principal Commissioner while adjudicating the claim of the writ applicant with respect to Section 50C of the Act. In this regard, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. We leave it to the Principal Commissioner to decide the same in accordance with law.