JASWINDER RANDHAWA,CHANDGARH vs. ASSTT. COMM. OF I. TAX, CIR 1(3)(1), HARDWAR, HARDWAR

ITA No.195/DDN/2026 JASWINDER RANDHAWA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.195/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 JASWINDER RANDHAWA, Vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME House No.1295, Ground Floor, TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, Sector-18/C, Chandigarh 160018. Circle 1(3)(1), Yogi Bhawan, PAN No. AFAPK9881Q Ind. Area, Hardwar 224110. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Rakesh Kumar Sehgal, CA Revenue by Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (VC) Date of hearing: 23.06.2026 Pronouncement on 25.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 10.02.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-Panaji.

1.1 In this case, the assessee had sold commercial property in Haridwar, Uttarakhand for a consideration of Rs.3,00,00,000/-. The circle rate value of this property was Rs.7,28,42,000/-. Thereafter this case was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for estimation of fair market value and the DVO estimated the same at Rs.312,73,000/-. On being confronted with the DVO’s report the assessee is seen to have raised the plea that the difference between the actual value realized of

ITA No.195/DDN/2026 JASWINDER RANDHAWA the said property and the DVO’s valuation is less than 5%, which as per the third proviso to section 50C(1) of the Act, was within the tolerance band of 5%. On this basis the assessee requested for accepting the sale value as the actual value for the purposes of section 50C of the Act. However, the Ld. AO did not agree with this proposition since, according to him, the amendment was brought into effect from 01.04.2019 and the present case pertained to FY 2015-16, hence, this amendment could not help the assessee. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.12,73,000/- was made.

1.2 Aggrieved with this the assessee approached the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) where also he could not succeed on the ground that the Ld. AO had correctly applied the provisions of law.

1.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with the single substantive ground challenging this action of Ld. AO.

2.1 The Ld. DR was content to rely on the orders of the authorities below.

ITA No.195/DDN/2026 JASWINDER RANDHAWA the assessee would get the benefit of the tolerance band of 5% available w.e.f. 01.04.2019, even when the year is AY 2016-17. We find that there are a number of coordinate bench orders of ITAT which have considered this issue and have come to the conclusion that the insertion of third proviso is curative in nature and thus, would apply retrospectively. The Ld. AR has filed a number of ITAT’s orders on this issue which have come to the conclusion that this amendment applies retrospectively. For the sake of record one such case is being picked up for analysis: M/s Amrapali Cinema [ITA 282/Del/2017, order dated 28.04.2021]. In this case, reliance has been placed on the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl [ITANo.4850/Mum./2019, order dated 15.01.2021]. The following passage is relevant for our consideration: -

“8. Once legislature very graciously accepts, by introducing the legal amendments in question, that there were lacunas in the provisions of section 50C in the sense that even in the cases of genuine variations between the stated consideration and the stamp duty valuation, anti-avoidance provisions under section 50C could be pressed into service, and thus remedied the law, there is no escape from holding that these amendments are effective with effect from the date on which the related provision, i.e., Section 50C, itself was introduced. These amendments are thus held to be retrospective in effect. In our considered view, therefore, the provisions of the third proviso to Section 50C (1), as they stand now, must be held to be effective with effect from 1st April 2003. We order accordingly.” Respectfully following this consistent view of ITAT Benches that the amendment introducing a tolerance band is retrospective being curative, we direct that the addition made by the Ld.AO be deleted.

ITA No.195/DDN/2026 JASWINDER RANDHAWA 4. In the result, this appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:25.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI