Issues: (i) Correction of the collective weight of the seized gold articles; (ii) Whether further proceedings could be initiated after expiry of the statutory period for issuing a show-cause notice; (iii) The period for which warehousing charges were payable.

Issue (i): Correction of the collective weight of the seized gold articles.

Analysis: The detention record was clarified to reflect that the gold bangle and gold chain collectively weighed 233 grams, rather than 273 grams.

Conclusion: The collective weight of the seized articles stands corrected as 233 grams.

Issue (ii): Whether further proceedings could be initiated after expiry of the statutory period for issuing a show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires issuance of a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing following detention. The prescribed six-month period, including the permissible extension on compliance with formalities, had elapsed; consequently, the continued detention was impermissible. Permitting further proceedings would prolong the matter and cause undue hardship.

Conclusion: No further proceedings in respect of the seized articles were permitted, and the direction for their release remained operative.

Issue (iii): The period for which warehousing charges were payable.

Analysis: The earlier release direction required payment of applicable customs duty and warehousing charges calculated at the rates prevailing on the date of detention. The payable period for warehousing charges was clarified.

Conclusion: Warehousing charges are payable only up to 26 November 2025.

Final Conclusion: The corrected detention particulars and clarifications preserve the release framework for the seized articles, subject to payment of the applicable duty and the specified warehousing charges.

Ratio Decidendi: Upon expiry of the maximum statutory period for issuing a show-cause notice under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, continued detention of seized goods is impermissible.

Issues: Whether registration under Section 12A could be directed on the basis of unpleaded and unsubstantiated oral assertions of charitable activities.

Analysis: The direction granting registration rested on assertions regarding implementation of a charitable healthcare project, although no supporting material or application to adduce additional evidence had been placed on record. The Revenue had not received formal notice of those assertions. Registration for subsequent years could not establish eligibility for the relevant years, which had to be determined from the activities and evidence pertaining to those years.

Conclusion: The direction to grant registration was unsustainable; the registration question for the relevant years requires fresh determination upon the record and any legally admissible additional evidence.

Issues: Whether two additional comparable companies, Universal Petro-Chemicals Ltd. and Iftex Oil and Chemicals Ltd., were liable to be included in the final set of comparables for determining the arm's length price of the international transaction relating to purchase of raw material.

Analysis: The transfer pricing dispute arose from benchmarking of the assessee's manufacturing segment under TNMM and the consequent adjustment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee sought inclusion of two additional comparables which had been rejected by the DRP on grounds including alleged cherry-picking, low margins, turnover disparity and persistent losses. The record showed that in earlier assessment years the department itself had accepted Universal Petro-Chemicals Ltd. and Iftex Oil and Chemicals Ltd. in the final set of comparables for the same manufacturing segment, and their functional comparability had not been disputed. In the absence of any justifiable distinguishing reason for the year under consideration, exclusion of those entities from the comparable set was not warranted. Their inclusion also brought the assessee's margin within the comparable range.

Conclusion: The two additional comparable companies were directed to be included in the final set of comparables for determining the arm's length price; the transfer pricing ground was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a comparable has been accepted by the revenue as functionally comparable for the same segment in other assessment years and no material distinction is shown for the year in question, its exclusion from the comparable set is unjustified in transfer pricing benchmarking.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging the GST assessment-cum-penalty orders should be entertained in view of the statutory appellate remedy. (ii) Whether the impugned penalty orders under Section 122 of the GST enactment were vitiated by lack of discretion, procedural irregularity, or disproportionality.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging the GST assessment-cum-penalty orders should be entertained in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitions challenged orders in Form GST DRC-07 passed for multiple tax periods on allegations of circular trading and wrongful availment or passing on of input tax credit. The Court noted that the GST enactment provides an appellate mechanism under Section 107, followed by further appellate recourse, and that the petitioners should not bypass that statutory structure by invoking writ jurisdiction at the first instance. The Court also noted that disputed factual and legal aspects were better left to the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned penalty orders under Section 122 of the GST enactment were vitiated by lack of discretion, procedural irregularity, or disproportionality.

Analysis: The Court held that the impugned orders recorded the objective basis for the finding of circular trading and disclosed application of mind. It distinguished the authorities relied on by the petitioners by holding that the language of Section 122, which provides for penalty of ten thousand rupees or the amount equivalent to the tax or input tax credit involved, whichever is higher, leaves no discretion to reduce the penalty to a lower amount. The Court further held that the petitioners had, prima facie, wrongly availed input tax credit and passed it on to inflate turnover, and that the case law on proportionality under other enactments did not control the GST penalty provision.

Conclusion: The penalty orders were not found to suffer from procedural illegality or patent disproportionality, and the petitioners were prima facie liable to penalty under the GST provisions.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty orders was rejected at the writ stage, while preserving the petitioners' right to pursue the statutory appeal with ancillary relief on pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a GST statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy, a writ petition challenging penalty orders based on disputed factual findings of circular trading and wrongful input tax credit should ordinarily not be entertained, and the penalty prescribed as the higher of a fixed sum or the quantified tax or credit involved admits of no discretion to scale it down below the statutory measure.

Issues: (i) whether the adjustment made on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables was sustainable; (ii) whether the benchmarking of interest on ECBs at LIBOR + 200 basis points was correct; (iii) whether the disallowance of leasehold amortisation charges was justified; and (iv) whether the royalty adjustment required separate benchmarking or fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): whether the adjustment made on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the view taken in the assessee's earlier years that receivables, when the Transactional Net Margin Method is accepted as the most appropriate method, are adequately reflected in the net margin, and that working capital adjustment must be considered while comparing the assessee with its comparables. On that basis, no separate upward adjustment towards overdue receivables was found warranted.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the benchmarking of interest on ECBs at LIBOR + 200 basis points was correct.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and accepted the view that the Reserve Bank of India framework and supporting precedents justified the adoption of LIBOR + 200 basis points as the arm's length rate for ECB interest. No reason was found to disturb the rate fixed by the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The benchmarking of interest on ECBs at LIBOR + 200 basis points was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the disallowance of leasehold amortisation charges was justified.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier ruling that long-term leasehold charges paid as a lump sum are allowable proportionately over the lease period as revenue expenditure. Since the facts were identical, the proportionate amortisation claim was held allowable.

Conclusion: The disallowance of leasehold amortisation charges was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether the royalty adjustment required separate benchmarking or fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the principle that, where royalty and related transactions are already aggregated and tested under TNMM, separate cherry-picking of royalty for an independent adjustment is impermissible. However, because the operating cost adopted by the TPO did not tally with the expenses recorded in the books and the discrepancy was not reconciled, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after reconciliation.

Conclusion: The royalty issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the receivables and leasehold amortisation issues, failed on the ECB interest issue, and the royalty adjustment was sent back for reconsideration after reconciliation of the operating cost discrepancy.

Ratio Decidendi: When TNMM is accepted for a segment, separate adjustment for a transaction already embedded in the segment's operating results is generally impermissible, while receivables and leasehold charges must be tested consistently with the method and the underlying commercial substance of the transaction.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit of countervailing duty paid at a concessional rate on imported coal was admissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the restriction applicable to concessional excise duty on domestically manufactured coal could be extended to imported coal cleared on payment of CVD under the customs notification. The Tribunal noted that the customs notification governed imported coal and did not incorporate the restriction contained in the excise notification. It followed its earlier decision holding that Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permits credit of CVD on imported coal, and that the proviso restricting credit for coal covered by the excise exemption notification cannot be read into the customs notification by implication. The issue was treated as settled by the earlier Tribunal decision affirmed by the High Court.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the concessional CVD paid on imported coal was admissible, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing credit was sustained and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on CENVAT credit attached to concessional excise duty under an excise exemption notification cannot be imported by implication to deny credit of CVD paid on imported coal under a customs notification, where the customs notification does not itself impose such a bar.

Issues: (i) whether refund of excess excise duty paid on clearances made at a pre-revised price was admissible when the transfer price was later reduced under a known price variation mechanism; (ii) whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied to the refund claim.

Issue (i): whether refund of excess excise duty paid on clearances made at a pre-revised price was admissible when the transfer price was later reduced under a known price variation mechanism.

Analysis: The clearances were made at a price fixed on the basis of the Pricing Committee's recommendations and the variation in price was known in advance to the revenue. When the price was later reduced, excess duty had been paid at the time of clearance. The claim was examined under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the fact that the assessment had not been described as provisional did not defeat the claim where the duty paid exceeded the liability ultimately arising from the revised price structure and the refund was filed within time.

Conclusion: The refund claim was maintainable and the appellant was entitled to refund of the excess duty.

Issue (ii): whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied to the refund claim.

Analysis: The record contained a verification report from the Range Officer stating that the locomotives were used within the Railways, that no cash payment was involved, and that only book adjustment was made through inter-railway transfer transactions. On those facts, the authorities below were required to act on the existing verification material, which showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on and that no unjust enrichment arose on the refunds claimed for the relevant period.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the appellant satisfied the requirement for refund.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of refund was set aside and the refund claim was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excise duty is paid on clearances made under a known price variation mechanism and the price is later reduced, refund of the excess duty is admissible under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and unjust enrichment is not attracted when the incidence of duty is not passed on, as evidenced by the transaction structure and verification record.

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained in view of the efficacious statutory appeal remedy.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to contain consideration of the petitioner's replies, written submissions and supporting material, with the proper officer recording findings on the classification dispute, exemption claim and valuation. In those circumstances, the Court held that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out when an appellate remedy was available, and the petitioner could raise all factual and legal grounds before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appeal, and the High Court declined to examine the demand on merits in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: When an adjudication order reflects consideration of the parties' materials and an efficacious statutory appeal lies, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked to challenge the demand on merits.

Issues: Whether the prohibition in Section 16(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to the entire tax component of capital goods where depreciation is claimed only on the portion of input tax credit not availed under the banking company option in Section 17(4).

Analysis: Section 16(3) bars input tax credit only on the "said tax component" on which depreciation is claimed. The provision is intended to prevent double benefit, namely, depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961 together with credit of the same tax component under the CGST regime. Section 17(2) restricts credit to the portion attributable to taxable supplies, while Section 17(4) creates a special option for banking companies and financial institutions to avail 50% of eligible credit and let the balance lapse. On that scheme, the unavailed 50% is treated akin to the portion attributable to exempt supplies, and no double benefit arises where depreciation is not claimed on that balance. The restriction in Section 16(3) cannot therefore be expanded to deny credit on the entire tax component merely because depreciation was claimed on the non-availed portion.

Conclusion: The prohibition under Section 16(3) applies only to the tax component on which depreciation is actually claimed, and it does not extend to the 50% input tax credit not availed under Section 17(4).

Final Conclusion: The impugned notices and the order were interfered with to the extent they proceeded on the incorrect view that depreciation on the unavailed portion of input tax credit barred credit on the entire tax component, while leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy against the remaining disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a banking company lawfully opts for the 50% credit mechanism under Section 17(4), Section 16(3) disallows credit only for the specific tax component on which depreciation is claimed and cannot be used to deny credit on the balance unavailed portion.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment for the relevant year in a search case was required to be framed under section 153A read with section 153B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the approval granted under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was mechanical and therefore unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment for the relevant year in a search case was required to be framed under section 153A read with section 153B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The last panchnama recording conclusion of the search was drawn in the financial year relevant to the subsequent assessment year, and the assessment year in question fell within the ambit of the search provisions. In such a situation, the assessment machinery applicable was section 153A read with section 153B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Framing the assessment under section 143(3) without the jurisdictional notice under section 153A rendered the assessment legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid and liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval granted under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was mechanical and therefore unsustainable.

Analysis: The approval was granted in a consolidated and generalized manner for multiple assessment years, without demonstrating application of mind to the specific facts of the assessee's case. Such a mechanical approval could not cure the jurisdictional defect in the assessment process and supported the challenge raised by the assessee.

Conclusion: The approval under section 153D was mechanical and could not sustain the assessment.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed, the assessee's objection succeeded, and the assessment order stood quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a search case, once the search is concluded by the last panchnama in the relevant year, the assessment must be made under the search provisions applicable to that year, and an assessment framed under section 143(3) without the required jurisdictional notice is void; a mechanical approval cannot validate such a defective assessment.

Issues: Validity of reassessment proceedings where sanction under section 151 was accorded in a mechanical manner by merely endorsing satisfaction on a printed pro forma.

Analysis: The approval granted by the specified authority was recorded only by affixing a rubber-stamp endorsement expressing satisfaction, without any independent reasons or material-linked consideration. For reopening under sections 148 and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the prescribed authority must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, and such satisfaction must reflect application of mind. A mere formal or ritualistic endorsement does not satisfy the statutory safeguard. Following the settled law that mechanical approval is invalid, the reassessment notices based on such sanction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid because the sanction under section 151 was mechanical and without due application of mind. The reassessment orders were liable to be quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the reassessment proceedings founded on defective approval were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Sanction for issuance of notice under sections 148 and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must reflect genuine satisfaction based on an independent application of mind; a mere rubber-stamp or pro forma endorsement is not a valid approval and vitiates the reopening.

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the footing that the Assessing Officer had erroneously allowed deduction of DPCO liability while computing book profits under section 115JB.

Analysis: The liability had already been accepted as an ascertained liability in the assessee's own case for the relevant assessment year while computing income under the normal provisions, and the record showed that the DPCO dispute remained pending before the High Court. The assumption that the liability had been settled by the Supreme Court and that the amount represented only a bank guarantee obligation was found to be factually incorrect. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer's view that the claim could be accepted was a plausible view and could not be branded as erroneous merely because the Principal Commissioner preferred a different approach.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was unsustainable and the revisionary order was set aside.

Issues: Whether the assessment order for the relevant assessment year was barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having regard to the reduced time limit and the exclusion of time relating to search proceedings.

Analysis: The time limit for completion of assessment for the relevant year was 12 months from the end of the assessment year under the fourth proviso to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case also fell within clause (xii) of Explanation (1) to Section 153, which excludes the period, up to 180 days, during which the seized material is handed over to the Assessing Officer. On the facts, the excluded period falling within the limitation window extended the last date for completion of assessment only up to 22.08.2024, while the assessment order was passed later. The statutory computation therefore made the order time-barred.

Conclusion: The assessment order was barred by limitation and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: For a search-related assessment, only the period falling within the limitation window and covered by clause (xii) of Explanation (1) to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be excluded, and an order passed beyond the resulting extended deadline is time-barred.

Issues: (i) Whether the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC in respect of political donations was allowable. (ii) Whether the deduction claimed under Section 80C was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC in respect of political donations was allowable.

Analysis: The donation was found to be part of a pattern of accommodation entries in which amounts paid through banking channels were allegedly routed back in cash after deduction of commission. No fresh material was produced before the Tribunal to rebut the factual findings recorded by the lower authorities. The Tribunal followed the earlier co-ordinate bench view and accepted the finding that the donation lacked genuineness.

Conclusion: The deduction under Section 80GGC was not allowable and the disallowance was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deduction claimed under Section 80C was allowable.

Analysis: The claimed deduction exceeded the admissible statutory limit of Rs. 1,50,000 and no basis was shown to disturb the lower authority's computation.

Conclusion: The disallowance under Section 80C was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions/disallowances made by the lower authorities were sustained in full and the assessee's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction claim fails where the underlying transaction is found to be an accommodation entry lacking genuineness, and a deduction beyond the statutory ceiling cannot be allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made in search assessment under section 153C on the basis of the seized agreement to sell was sustainable. (ii) Whether penalty under section 271D was leviable on the cash component of the property transaction.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made in search assessment under section 153C on the basis of the seized agreement to sell was sustainable.

Analysis: The seized agreement to sell was signed by the relevant parties, contained specific details of the property, consideration, cheque payment, and cash payment, and was corroborated by the registered sale deeds. The matching cheque particulars and the surrounding transaction details supported the genuineness of the document. The objection that the document was only a photocopy and that valuation material should prevail was rejected because the seized document itself constituted clear incriminating material and did not require further independent corroboration.

Conclusion: The addition under section 153C was sustained and the assessee's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 271D was leviable on the cash component of the property transaction.

Analysis: Although the facts showed receipt of cash in connection with the sale transaction, the levy of penalty was held to be unsustainable because the cash payment was treated as part of a completed sale transaction and not as the kind of advance payment targeted by the amended anti-cash provisions. The reasoning followed the settled view that section 269SS, as applied through the penalty provision, does not cover such completed registered sale transactions in the same manner as prohibited cash advances.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271D was deleted and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The quantum addition was upheld, but the penalty matter was decided in favour of the assessee, resulting in a partial success overall.

Ratio Decidendi: A seized and duly corroborated agreement to sell can sustain a search assessment addition where its contents are matched by subsequent registered sale deeds, but penalty for cash receipt cannot be sustained where the payment forms part of a completed registered property sale transaction outside the mischief of the relevant anti-cash advance provision.

Issues: Whether the alleged agreement to sell recovered in search proceedings could be treated as a reliable and admissible basis to sustain the addition for alleged receipt of unaccounted on-money and the consequential penalty.

Analysis: The agreement was found to be unsigned by the purchasers, unsupported by witnesses or drafting particulars, and internally inconsistent on material aspects. The document also did not include the beneficiary intermediary as a party, and no independent enquiry was made to verify the alleged market value or receipt of cash. In these circumstances, the document lacked the sanctity of a concluded and unambiguous agreement and could not by itself furnish conclusive proof of undisclosed consideration.

Conclusion: The addition based on the alleged on-money receipt was unsustainable, and the consequential penalty also could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: An unexecuted or intrinsically ambiguous seized document, without corroboration, cannot by itself justify a conclusive inference of undisclosed consideration or sustain a consequential penalty.

Issues: Whether the condition requiring furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs as a condition of bail was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant had already furnished a personal bond of Rs. 1 crore with two sureties of like amount, and the impugned bank guarantee condition was examined in light of the governing principles on bail conditions. Considering the nature of the case, the existing bond and surety arrangement, and the legal position relied upon, the additional bank guarantee was found to be excessively onerous and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The condition requiring furnishing of a bank guarantee of Rs. 50 lakhs as a condition of bail was set aside.

Issues: (i) whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected on the ground of abnormal discount and assessed under the residual method; (ii) whether the matter required remand for reconsideration of the evidence on discount and valuation.

Issue (i): whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods could be rejected on the ground of abnormal discount and assessed under the residual method.

Analysis: The declared price was not shown to involve any relationship between buyer and seller or any additional payment over the invoice price. The dispute turned on whether the discounts from the manufacturer's list price were so abnormal that the transaction value could be discarded. While Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 permit acceptance of transaction value only where the statutory conditions are satisfied, rejection requires a legally sustainable basis under Rule 10A, supported by material showing reason to doubt the declared value. The record contained purchase orders, invoices, correspondence, and a communication indicating that higher discounts could be extended for strategic projects, but the authorities below did not adequately examine this material.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the straight resort to the residual method was not affirmed on the existing record.

Issue (ii): whether the matter required remand for reconsideration of the evidence on discount and valuation.

Analysis: The evidence produced by the importer and the comparable discount chart relied upon by the Revenue were not properly tested for comparability, timing, project linkage, and quantity basis. Since the admissibility of the higher discount and the consequent assessable value depended on factual scrutiny of this material, a fresh examination was necessary.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the evidence and redetermination of assessable value.

Final Conclusion: The valuation dispute was not finally resolved on merits and was sent back for fresh adjudication after examination of the relevant materials.

Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value may be rejected only on a legally supportable basis with proper scrutiny of the evidence, and where material bearing on discount and valuation has not been adequately examined, remand is appropriate.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessing officer could substitute the actual sale consideration by the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without referring the matter to the departmental valuation officer when the assessee did not participate in proceedings.

Analysis: The assessing officer invoked Section 50C and adopted the stamp valuation authority's value as deemed sale consideration to compute short-term capital gain, while the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings. The issue requires application of statutory mechanism under Section 50C which contemplates valuation by a departmental valuation officer to determine fair market value where the value adopted by the stamp authority is disputed or appears excessive. Relevant precedent recognises that, notwithstanding non-participation by the assessee, the quasi-judicial authority should, in the interest of fairness and to avoid miscarriage of justice, give effect to the valuation mechanism by referring the matter to the valuation cell before substituting the registered value as deemed consideration. The factual matrix showed prior transaction evidence indicating a substantial variance between stamp authority value and transaction consideration, supporting the need for fresh valuation and opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence.

Conclusion: The matter is remitted to the assessing officer to refer the property to the departmental valuation officer for determination of fair market value and for re-computation of short-term capital gain in accordance with law; the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Before substituting the sale consideration by the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority under Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessing officer must, where fairness requires, refer the matter to the departmental valuation officer for determination of fair market value and afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard, and assessment must be redetermined on that basis.

Outcome: Delay was condoned, but no interference was called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and the special leave petition was dismissed.