Section 50C and reassessment limitation: deemed property value can satisfy the extended-period threshold under Section 149.

In reassessment under the amended regime, the monetary threshold for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 149 is applied on the basis of the deemed full value of consideration where Section 50C operates. Because the immovable property transfer was sold below stamp valuation, the deemed consideration exceeded the statutory threshold, so the Section 148 notice and Section 148A(d) order were within jurisdiction. The court also held that alleged non-consideration of the taxpayer's reply did not by itself invalidate the proceedings once the limitation challenge failed, as no separate prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were without jurisdiction on the ground that the escaped income was below the monetary threshold for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 149. (ii) Whether non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice vitiated the order under Section 148A(d).

Issue (i): Whether the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were without jurisdiction on the ground that the escaped income was below the monetary threshold for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 149.

Analysis: The relevant transfer involved immovable property sold for a declared consideration lower than the stamp valuation. Under Section 50C, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority is deemed to be the full value of consideration for capital gains computation under Section 48. On that basis, the petitioner's share of the transaction exceeded the monetary threshold for the extended reassessment period under Section 149. The reassessment notice was therefore issued within the permissible statutory framework, and the challenge based on want of jurisdiction could not succeed.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation and jurisdiction fails and is answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether non-consideration of the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice vitiated the order under Section 148A(d).

Analysis: The Court held that once the principal jurisdictional issue on limitation was decided against the petitioner, the grievance regarding alleged non-consideration of the written submission did not affect the validity of the impugned action. No independent prejudice sufficient to invalidate the proceedings was made out.

Conclusion: The order under Section 148A(d) was not vitiated on this ground and the issue is answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were upheld, and the writ petition failed in toto, leaving the revenue authorities free to complete the assessment in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For reassessment under the amended regime, the monetary threshold for invoking the extended limitation period is to be applied on the basis of the deemed full value of consideration where Section 50C operates, and a notice issued within that framework is not invalid merely because the declared sale consideration is lower.

---