2021 (2) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 48,48,309/made under Section 50C of the Act. 2. In the aforesaid context, we may state that in the case of the very same writ applicant herein before us, we decided the issue of Section 50C of the Act by remitting the matter to the Principal Commissioner. We quote the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2021: "1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "A) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the 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 tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for such delay. Nevertheless, he proceeded to decide the revision petition on merits as well. The petitioner had raised two issues. One was the decision of the Assessing Officer not granting exemption under section 54B of the Act and the other being the applicability of section 50C of the Act in relation to sell of land by the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not dispute the Commissioner's order in connection with 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 agree....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are as under: "As per provision contained in sub section (3) of section 264 application for revision under this section by the assessee, must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him. In this case, the assessment order was served on 29.01.2016 upon the assessee. Thus, assessee was required to file application on or before 29.01.2017 but it has filed on 27.02.2017. Thus, 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 a....