POLICE PARAMESH REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 798/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 January 2022AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessees did not appear, and the revenue argued that the PCIT's revision was justified due to alleged failure to make additions under Section 50C for capital gains. The appeals were proceeded exparte.

What were the facts?

The assessees sold a capital asset on June 27, 2011, receiving payments including Rs. 30 lakhs in 2008 and Rs. 2.70 crore later. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, considering the original assessments erroneous.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was justified due to the alleged failure to make additions under Section 50C for capital gains, and whether the original assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 50C

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

For Respondent: Dr. Rajendra Kumar
Hearing: 05/01/2022Pronounced: 11/01/2022

O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. These three assessees’ appeals for A.Y. 2012-13 arise against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Hyderabad’s separate orders; all dated 22.03.2019, involving proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T. Act.

Cases called twice. None appears at the assessees’ behest. They are accordingly proceeded exparte.

2.

We note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that all these three instant cases involving identical factual backdrop wherein the assessees before us seek to reverse the PCIT’s revision directions terming the corresponding assessments framed on 30.12.2016 as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue as the latter authority had allegedly failed in not making section 50C addition of capital gains.

3.

There is hardly any dispute that these assessees had infact sold / transferred the relevant capital asset on 27.06.2011 which has triggered the instant lis. It is further an admitted fact that they had received cheque(s) of Rs.30 lakhs on 25.04.2008 which stood duly accounted for in the foregoing sale deed followed by further payment of Rs.2.70 crore. And also that the Sub-Registrar had adopted stamp value of the capital asset as Rs.5,66,28,000/- as on 27.06.2011.

4.

It further emerges on a perusal of the case files that the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessees’ contentions that section 50C(1). (First and second proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017) infact carried retrospective effect as per the tribunal’s decision in Dharmashibhai Sonani Vs. ACIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141 and therefore, only the sale consideration as on the date of first agreement (supra) had to be adopted as the fair market value. It is the assessment findings accepting the assessees’ side to this effect which stand revised in the PCIT’s revision directions under challenge that there was no indication of any oral agreement in April 2008 and the above statutory provision nowhere carried retrospective effect.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the PCIT’s revision directions and find no merit therein. It is made clear that once the assessees’ part sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs has accepted, the necessary consequence is that all these assessees / vendors had duly entered into agreement in the said earlier assessment year only and thus covered under sec 50C(1) first and 2nd proviso held to be retrospective in the tribunal’s order. We therefore conclude that the PCIT’s revision directions have erred in law and on facts in treating the corresponding assessments as erroneous ones causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue in light of hon’ble apex court’s decision in M/s Malabar Industries Co., Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The same stand reversed.

6.

These three assessees’ appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of the common order be placed in respective case files.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 11th January, 2022.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →