2021 (1) TMI 793

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of Respondent at Annexure - H. B) this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to hold that Rs. 48,48,309/- is wrongly added u/s. 50C in the hands of the petitioner or in the alternative this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay in filing the application before the Respondent and set aside the proceedings to the Respondent to be decided afresh on the issue of Section 50C with a direction that the same may be considered on merits. C) Pending the final hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to ask the Respondent and his subordinate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith the claim of the petitioner under section 54 of the Act. However, with respect to revised capital gain under section 50C of the Act, counsel relied on the 1st proviso to subsection (1) of section 50C of the Act which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2000, as per which, if the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. Counsel pointed out that the requirement of the further proviso for applicability of the said proviso viz. that the payment should ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there was a delay of 29 days in filing the application. Assessee himself admitted that the application was late and has not given any plausive/concrete reason except health ground with supporting evidence for this delay/lapse. Thus, for want of justifiable reasons, assessee application is barred by time limitation and not maintainable as such, the case of the assessee does not fall in proviso of sub section (3) of Section 264 of the I.T. Act, and hence, the same is rejected." 5. Thus, although the Principal Commissioner recorded a finding that the revision application was time barred and the same was liable to be rejected on such ground and in fact came to be rejected, yet the Principal Commissioner, thereafter proceeded to con....