CIT v. R. Sugantha Ravindran - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1286 (Mad-HC) : (2013) 052 (I) ITCL 0079 : (2013) 352 ITR 0488 : (2013) 260 CTR 0412 : (2013) 214 TAXMAN 0543 : (2013) 090 DTR 0353 Income Tax Act, 1961 --Capital gains--Applicability of section 50CTransfer of property by agreement not registered with stamp duty authorities--Assessee transferred a property in pursuance of an agreement which was not registered with stamp duty authorities. Assessing officer referred the matter to the stamp valuation authority in order to find out the Value of the property for payment of stamp duty. As the guideline value given by the stamp valuation authority was found to be higher than the consideration as per the agreement of sale, by invoking the provisions of section 50C, assessing officer computed the long-term capital gains by adopting the guideline value as the sale consideration instead of the consideration admitted by assessee. Assessee submitted that when the word 'assessable' was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, that too, with effect from October 1-10-2009, cannot be applied retrospectively and, therefore, section 50C can be made applicable only in the case where the registration of the sale deed had taken place and not otherwise. *Held:* The insertion of the words 'or assessable' by amending section 50C with effect from 1-10-2009, is neither a clarification nor an explanation to the already existing provision and it is only an inclusion of new class of transactions, namely, the transfers of properties without or before registration. Thus, such introduction of new set of class of transfer would certainly have the prospective application only and not otherwise. Hence, the assessee's transfer admittedly made earlier to such amendment could not be brought under section 50C. Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 50C In the Madras High Court R. Banumathi & K. Ravichandra Baabu JJ. CIT v. R. Sugantha Ravindran Tax Case (A.) No. 21 of 2010 6 March, 2013 Appellant by : N.V. Balaji Respondent by : R. Kumar for T.N. Seetharaman JUDGMENT *K. Ravichandra Baabu J.* The Revenue is on appeal in respect of the assessment year 2005-06. The following is the substantial question of law that arise for consideration of this court in this appeal : SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 1286 (Mad-HC) : (2013) 052 (I) ITCL 0079 : (2013) 352 ITR 0488 : (2013) 260 CTR 0412 : (2013) 214 TAXMAN 0543 : (2013) 090 DTR 0353

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Capital gains--Applicability of section 50CTransfer of property by agreement not registered with stamp duty authorities--Assessee transferred a property in pursuance of an agreement which was not registered with stamp duty authorities. Assessing officer referred the matter to the stamp valuation authority in order to find out the Value of the property for payment of stamp duty. As the guideline value given by the stamp valuation authority was found to be higher than the consideration as per the agreement of sale, by invoking the provisions of section 50C, assessing officer computed the long-term capital gains by adopting the guideline value as the sale consideration instead of the consideration admitted by assessee. Assessee submitted that when the word 'assessable' was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, that too, with effect from October 1-10-2009, cannot be applied retrospectively and, therefore, section 50C can be made applicable only in the case where the registration of the sale deed had taken place and not otherwise. Held: The insertion of the words 'or assessable' by amending section 50C with effect from 1-10-2009, is neither a clarification nor an explanation to the already existing provision and it is only an inclusion of new class of transactions, namely, the transfers of properties without or before registration. Thus, such introduction of new set of class of transfer would certainly have the prospective application only and not otherwise. Hence, the assessee's transfer admittedly made earlier to such amendment could not be brought under section 50C.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 50C

In the Madras High Court

R. Banumathi & K. Ravichandra Baabu JJ.

CIT v. R. Sugantha Ravindran

Tax Case (A.) No. 21 of 2010

6 March, 2013

Appellant by : N.V. Balaji

Respondent by : R. Kumar for T.N. Seetharaman

JUDGMENT

K. Ravichandra Baabu J.

The Revenue is on appeal in respect of the assessment year 2005-06. The following is the substantial question of law that arise for consideration of this court in this appeal :