Full Text
M
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ITA 271/2015&CM No.7356/2015
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II Appellant
Through:MrRohit Madan,Advocate.
Through: Mr M.P. Rastogi and Mr K.N. Ahuja, Advocates.
07.01.2016
ORDER
1. There is an inordinate delay of496 days in re-filing the appeal. The explanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directions issued bythis Courtfore-filingofthe appeals.Ashasalready been observed by this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued after consultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to get acquainted with the requirement ofe-filing.Additionally,the Courthas also provided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty is caused to the barfor switching overto the system ofe-filing. In any event, thedelayofoveroneandahalfyearsonthisgroundis wholly unacceptable. ITA 271/2015& CMNo.7356/2015 d, r. Page I of[3] 2016:DHC:8446-DB Consequently,the Courtisnotpersuadedto condonethe extraordinary delay of496 daysin re-filing the appeal.
2. Nevertheless,the appeal has also been examined on merits.
3. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed againstan order dated 5^^ April,2013 passed bytheIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA No. 6136/Del/2012 for the AssessmentYear('AY')2009-10.
4. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether Section 50C ofthe Act would be applicable to the computation ofthe sale price ofthe landtransferredto the RespondentAssessee.during the relevantAY?
5. Admittedly, the sale agreement in the present case was entered on 30"" March,2009 but was not registered. One ofthe factors that weighed with the ITAT in the impugned order, while reversing the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals), was that the word "assessable" in Section50C(1)along with Explanation2wasinserted only with effectfrom V October,2009 and,therefore,the transaction in question fell outside the netofSection 50C ofthe Act.The Courthas been shownthe Circularissued ITA 271/2015&CMNo.7356/2015 ^of[3] by the Central Board of Direct Taxes explaining the aforementioned insertionsin Section50C pertaining to'deemed valuation in certain cases of transfer. The said Circular clarifies that the aforementioned insertions in Section 50C are prospective and apply "in relation to transactions undertaken on or after 1'^ October,2009.
6. In that view ofthe matter,the impugned order ofthe ITAT suffers from nolegalinfirmityand doesnotgiveriseto anysubstantialquestionoflaw.
7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed both on the grounds ofinordinate delayof496 daysin re-filingthe appeal as well ason merits.
JANUARY 07,2016 MK S.MURALIDHAR,J VIBHUBAKHRU,J ITA 271/2015& CMNo.7356/2015 Page3of[3]