2021 (1) TMI 793 - HC - Income Tax

High Court partially allows writ, quashes order due to delay in filing revision petition. Remits for adjudication on Section 50C.

The High Court partially allowed the writ application, quashing the Principal Commissioner's order due to a delay in filing the revision petition under ... Revision u/s 264 - revised capital gain u/s 50C of the Act - writ applicant submit that he is confining his case only to Section 50C as according to him Principal Commissioner has not recorded any finding, as regards Section 50C of the Act and for this limited purpose, the matter may be remitted so that the issue of Section 50C can be considered - HELD THAT:- For the forgoing reasons, this writ application succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner, Ahmedabad dated 19th March, 2018, Annexure – H to this writ application, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Ahmedabad for the purpose of adjudicating the issue with regard to Section 50C of the Act. At this stage, we may once clarify again so that there may not be any confusion in future that the issue with regard to limitation stands concluded. The issue with regard to limitation shall not be re-opened by the Principal Commissioner while adjudicating the claim of the writ applicant with respect to Section 50C of the Act. In this regard, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on merits. Issues:1. Delay in filing revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Consideration of the claim under Section 54 and revised capital gain under Section 50C of the Act.3. Whether the Principal Commissioner should have considered the issue of Section 50C of the Act.Delay in Filing Revision Petition:The petitioner filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order rejecting the revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act due to a delay of 29 days in filing the application. The Principal Commissioner held that the application was time-barred and not maintainable, as the petitioner failed to provide justifiable reasons for the delay. Despite this, the Principal Commissioner proceeded to consider the matter on merits, leading to a dispute over the handling of the time limitation issue.Consideration of Section 54 and Section 50C:The petitioner raised two issues before the Principal Commissioner: one related to the claim under Section 54 of the Act, and the other concerning the revised capital gain under Section 50C. The petitioner's counsel focused solely on Section 50C, arguing that the Principal Commissioner did not provide a finding on this section. The Senior Counsel suggested sending the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for a decision specifically on Section 50C, as it remained unresolved.Principal Commissioner's Decision and Remittance:The High Court, after hearing both parties, partially allowed the writ application. The impugned order by the Principal Commissioner was quashed and set aside, remitting the matter back to the Principal Commissioner for adjudication solely on the issue of Section 50C of the Act. The Court clarified that the limitation issue was settled and should not be revisited during the consideration of the Section 50C matter. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving it to the Principal Commissioner to decide in accordance with the law.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of delay in filing the revision petition, consideration of the claims under different sections of the Income Tax Act, and the decision to remit the matter back for specific adjudication on Section 50C.