2020 (6) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f notice to the assessee. Inspite of notice by RPAD, the assessee chose to remain absent when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit. 2. The Ld.Representative for the Revenue submitted that the assessee entered into an agreement for sale of his property on 04.08.2012 for a total consideration of Rs. 19 crores. On the date of agreement, the assessee has received Rs. 6 crores. However, the sale deed was executed and registered on 02.05.2013. The assessee adopted the guideline value as on 04.08.2012 for computing the capital gain. The CIT(A) by placing reliance on the proviso to Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), direc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the date of agreement for sale is not more than Rs. 19 crores. The claim of the Revenue appears to that is on 02.05.2013 when the assessee executed the sale deed for registration, the guideline value was more than Rs. 19 crores. Therefore, the Assessing Officer adopted the guideline value by applying Section 50C of the Act. 3.1 The object of introduction of Section 50C is to tax a deeming income of capital gain when the assessee executed a registered sale deed below the guideline value prescribed by the respective State Government. The question arises for consideration is when there was an agreement for sale of the property before execution of the sale deed and registration thereof whether the agreed price between the parties on the date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... existing position of law and to avoid further litigation. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that first proviso to Section 50C of the Act, is applicable retrospectively. It does not create any new right between the parties. It simply clarifies the existing position of law. Therefore, the judgment of the Apex court in M/s. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., supra may not be applicable to the facts of this case. The CIT(A) after referring to first proviso to Section 50C of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the guideline value as on 04.08.2012, being the date of agreement and there after compute the assessee's capital gain. Therefore the Revenue cannot have any grievance in the decision of the CIT(A). Accordingly the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X