Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 involved proceedings under section 147 read with section 144. The lower authorities invoked section 50C addition for long-term capital gains based on a difference between the actual sale price and the circle rate.
Held
The Tribunal held that the 3rd proviso to Section 50C(1), which provides a 10% tolerance margin, has retrospective effect as it is curative in nature, following the ruling in Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO.
Key Issues
Whether the 3rd proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, providing a 10% tolerance margin, has retrospective effect for AY 2013-14.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 50C, 50C(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Savita Gupta, Ahata Bhannamal, Gandhi Ward-4(3)(1), Market, Etah, UP Etah PAN :AIDPG5189R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.02.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeals for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065444154(1) dated 06.06.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 50C addition of long-term capital gains amounting to Rs.71,25,807/- after noticing difference between the assessee’s actual sale price of Rs. 75 lakhs as against the circle rate of the capital asset to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs; respectively.
Faced with this situation, we invited the Revenue’s attention to section 50C (1) 3rd proviso envisaging such a tolerance margin of 10% between actual & stamp price of capital asset vide Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. It’s case before us is that the same does not carry any retrospective effect as the impugned assessment before us is AY 2013-14. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing contention in light of (2021) 123 taxmann.com 252 (Mum) Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO that has already settled the issue in assessee’s favour thereby holding the above statutory proviso as having retrospective effective, being curative in nature. We accordingly delete the impugned section 50C addition in very terms.