Court Upholds Order on Income Tax Revision Petition

The court upheld the order rejecting the revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the delay in filing. The petitioner's challenge on the non-granting of exemption under section 54B was not disputed, but the dispute regarding the revised capital gain under section 50C was contested. The petitioner argued that the Jantri rates revised on the registration date should have been considered for computing the full value of consideration, as per the proviso to subsection (1) of section 50C. The court issued a notice returnable for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to order rejecting revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Dispute regarding exemption under section 54B of the Act and applicability of section 50C in relation to the sale of land.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order rejecting the revision petition under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to being filed beyond the limitation period. The Commissioner decided the revision petition on merits despite the delay. The petitioner raised two issues: non-granting of exemption under section 54B and the applicability of section 50C to the sale of land. The counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the Commissioner's decision on the section 54 claim but contested the revised capital gain under section 50C. The counsel relied on the 1st proviso to subsection (1) of section 50C, emphasizing that the requirement for the proviso's applicability was met in the present case. The contention was that the Jantri rates revised on the sale deed registration date should have been considered, which the Commissioner did not address in the impugned order.

2. The counsel pointed out the insertion of the proviso to section 50C with effect from 01.04.2000, allowing the consideration value assessed by the stamp valuation authority on the agreement date to be used for computing the full value of consideration if certain conditions, including payment through specific means, were fulfilled. The petitioner argued that the Jantri rates revised on the registration date should have been used, as the payment method requirement was met. However, the Commissioner did not address this argument in the order. A notice returnable on 29.10.2018 was issued, permitting direct service for further proceedings.

---