INCOME TAX OFFICER (INT TXN)-1, HYDERABAD vs. MURUTUZA ALI KHAN MOHAMMED, HYDERABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the sale agreement and advance payments satisfied the conditions of Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals with a 10-day delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appeals challenged the CIT(A)'s order which partly deleted the assessment findings related to long-term capital gains.
What were the issues?
Whether the consideration agreed upon in a sale agreement, with advance payments made through banking channels, should be adopted as the fair market value for capital gains, and whether the CIT(A) correctly applied the provisos to Section 50C(1).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI S.S. GODARA
O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : These Revenue’s twin appeals for Asst. Year 2011-12 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad’s separate orders, both dt.23.03.2020 passed in case Nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2019-20/102686978 and ITBA/APL/S/250/2019- Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); respectively.
Cases called twice. None appeared at assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded exparte.
We notice at the outset that both the appeals of revenue suffer from 10 days delay in filing. Learned department representative submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic covid 19 unable to get the documents from the department which caused the impugned delay in filing of the instant appeal. Case law Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC) and University of Delhi Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No.9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17th Dec., 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that Revenue’s impugned delay of ten days in both cases is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Cases are now taken up for adjudication on merits therefore. to reverse the CIT(A)’s action partly deleting assessment findings at 1/3 rd share each of long term capital gain amounting to Rs.4,89,08,085/-, we note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that the lower appellate discussion to this effect read as under :
-- Space left intentionally --
We find no merit in the Revenue’s stand as it has come on record that the corresponding sale agreement had taken place on 11.5.2005 followed by the necessary advance payments satisfying section 50C(1) 1st and 2nd proviso stipulating adoption of the agreed consideration followed a part and full payment on or before the date of agreement to be taken as the fair market value subject to the condition that the prescribed banking channel only had been adopted. The CIT(A) has already taken note of judicial precedents (supra) holding the foregoing proviso(es) to be curative ones having retrospective effect. We thus decline the Revenue’s instant identical sole substantive grievance raised in both the appeals.
These Revenue’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th Nov., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt.29.11.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to :
1. 1. i) Shri Murtuza Ali Khan Mohammed, 16-4-278, Chanchalguda, Hyderabd-500 034. ii) Shri Mohammed Mukhtar Ali Khan, 16-4-278, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad-500 034.
More judgments on Section 50C(1)
- Aslam Sadule Khan, Raigad vs ITO WD-4, PanvelITA 632/PUN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Arvind Kumar Rana, Noida vs DDIT/ADIT( in Tax.) Noida, NoidaITITA 83/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Jul 2026AY 2023-24
- Jaswinder Randhawa, Chandgarh vs Asstt. Comm. of I. Tax, Cir 1(3)(1), HardwarITA 195/DDN/2026[2016-17]Status: Heard25 Jun 2026AY 2016-17
- Vishnu Madhukar Kanerkar, Mumbai vs Jurisdictional AO Ward 22(3)(6), MumbaiITA 1974/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 May 2026AY 2017-18
- Madhusudan Singhari, Puri vs D.C.I.T. Circle-2(1), BhubaneswarITA 301/CTK/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 May 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026