Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Ii v. Surendra Singh

$- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * 3. +ITA 271/2015 & CM No.7356/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-II Appellant Through: Mr Rohit Madan, Advocate. versus SURENDRA SINGH Respondent Through: Mr M. P. Rastogi and Mr K. N. Ahuja,Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER%07.01.2016 % 1. There is an inordinate delay of 496 days in re-filing the appeal. Theexplanation offered is the standard one regarding the practice directionsissued by this Court for e-filing of the appeals. As has already been observedby this Court in several orders, the practice directions were issued afterconsultation with the bar and after giving sufficient time for the bar to getacquainted with the requirement of e-filing. Additionally, the Court has alsoprovided scanning machines at the filing counter so that no difficulty iscaused to the bar for switching over to the system of e-filing. In any event,the delay of over one and a half years on this ground is wholly unacceptable. Signature Not Verified Page d I , ofr.3 Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to condone the extraordinary delayof 496 days in re-filing the appeal. 2. Nevertheless, the appeal has also been examined on merits. 3. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 is directed against an order dated 5^^ April, 2013 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA No. 6136/Del/2012 for theAssessment Year ('AY') 2009-10. 4. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether Section 50Cof the Act would be applicable to the computation of the sale price of theland transferred to the Respondent Assessee.during the relevant AY? 5. Admittedly, the sale agreement in the present case was entered on 30""March, 2009 but was not registered. One of the factors that weighed withthe ITAT in the impugned order, while reversing the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was that the word "assessable" inSection 50C (1) along with Explanation 2 was inserted only with effect fromV October, 2009 and, therefore, the transaction in question fell outside thenet of Section 50C of the Act. The Court has been shown the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes explaining the aforementionedinsertions in Section 50C pertaining to 'deemed valuation in certain cases oftransfer. The said Circular clarifies that the aforementioned insertions inSection 50C are prospective and apply "in relation to transactionsundertaken on or after 1'^ October, 2009. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the ITAT suffers fromno legal infirmity and does not give rise to any substantial question of law.7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed both on the grounds of inordinatedelay of 496 days in re-filing the appeal as well as on merits. JANUARY 07, 2016MK S.MURALIDHAR, JVIBHUBAKHRU,J