Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Heritage Holidays Pvt. Ltd., filed a
writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment
Year 2019–20 under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- A
notice dated 15.03.2023 was issued under Section 148A(b)
alleging:
- Sale
of immovable property (ground floor at Vasant Vihar) below stamp duty
value, invoking Section 50C read with Section 43CA.
- Non-disclosure
of ₹1.25 crore received from transfer of basement property.
- The
petitioner responded stating:
- Ground
floor property was sold for ₹12.21 crore, while circle rate was ₹12.83
crore.
- The
variation was within 5% tolerance limit, hence protected under the
3rd proviso to Section 50C.
- Basement
transaction was incomplete due to buyer default, despite receipt of
advance.
- The agreement concerning the basement property was unregistered, but possession had been handed over.
Issues Involved
- Whether
reassessment proceedings under Section 148A were valid in the given
facts.
- Applicability
of safe harbour under Section 50C (3rd proviso).
- Whether
handing over possession constitutes “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v).
- Validity of proceedings in absence of approval documents and alleged non-compliance with Section 151A (faceless assessment).
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value was less than
5%, hence covered under safe harbour provision of Section 50C.
- Basement
transaction was incomplete; amount received was merely advance, not
income.
- Reassessment
invalid due to:
- Non-supply
of approval documents.
- Violation
of faceless assessment procedure under Section 151A.
- Proceedings should be quashed at threshold.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
case required deeper factual inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO).
- It
was a rare situation where stamp duty was paid by the seller,
raising suspicion of undisclosed cash components.
- For
basement property:
- Possession
already handed over.
- Hence,
transfer complete under Section 2(47)(v).
- Approval
documents would be furnished shortly.
- Faceless assessment compliance was already ensured.
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition,
holding:
- The
petitioner approached the Court after a delay of nearly five months.
- Several
factual aspects required examination by the AO.
- Interference
at this stage would not serve justice.
- Observations:
- Payment
of stamp duty by seller is unusual and requires scrutiny.
- Receipt
of 50% consideration without further legal action against buyers raises
doubts.
- The
petitioner is free to raise all legal and factual contentions during
reassessment proceedings.
- Revenue directed to supply approval documents within 10 days.
Important Clarifications
- Judicial
restraint in reassessment matters: Courts may refuse
interference where factual investigation is required.
- Safe
harbour under Section 50C is not automatic and
depends on full factual verification, including stamp duty aspects.
- Transfer
under Section 2(47)(v) can be triggered even by possession,
irrespective of registration.
- Delay in approaching writ jurisdiction may weaken the petitioner’s case.
Sections Involved
- Section
148A – Procedure before issuance of notice for reassessment
- Section
50C – Special provision for full value of consideration
- Section
43CA – Transfer of assets other than capital assets
- Section
2(47)(v) – Definition of transfer (possession-based
transfer)
- Section 151A – Faceless assessment scheme
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS29082023CW114482023_150711.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment