The reopening notice says my sale below circle rate attracts section 50C, but I am a developer and the floor sold was stock in trade, so section 50C cannot apply. Does that error destroy the notice?
No. The Delhi High Court held that sections 50C and 43CA both contain a deeming provision imputing to the asset transferred a value ascribable to it even where it is sold below the circle rate — the first for capital assets, the second for assets other than capital assets — so the Assessing Officer had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment. A misapprehension as to which of the two applied was not a jurisdictional error invalidating the section 148 proceedings, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Decided by the High Court (Yashwant Varma J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J) on 2025-01-14, reported as W.P.(C) 17527/2022 and CM APPL. 55918/2022 (Delhi High Court); Assessment Year 2017-18. It bears on section 50C, section 43CA, section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening, Capital Gains and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This is the point at which the section 50C and section 43CA analogues meet, and it is a warning about where the classification argument is worth taking. Whether the property was a capital asset or stock in trade decides which provision governs and, importantly, the tolerance limits and the agreement-date conditions differ between them — but it does not decide whether the reopening was validly initiated. At the section 148 stage the Court will look at whether there was material for a belief that income escaped, not at whether the officer named the right section. The classification argument still has to be made, but in the assessment or the appeal, where the correct provision and its own provisos will determine the quantum.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner, a property developer, sold one of the floors of the property under development for a consideration below the applicable circle rate. Following the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India v Ashish Agarwal, a notice under section 148A(b) was issued for AY 2017-18 on 20 May 2022 on information that the sale consideration was below the stamp duty valuation, an order under section 148A(d) followed on 29 July 2022 and a notice under section 148 was issued the same day. The reasons proceeded on the footing that section 50C was attracted. In response the petitioner explained the circumstances that had constrained it to sell below the circle rate, and contended that the Assessing Officer had erred in resorting to section 50C because the presumption that provision raises is in respect of the transfer of a capital asset, whereas the petitioner was a property developer and the floors it developed were in the nature of stock in trade. The Assessing Officer nevertheless held section 148 rightly invoked. Before the Court, counsel for the Revenue submitted that even assuming the property was not a capital asset, the officer could resort to section 43CA for assets other than capital assets, and that the mere mention of section 50C would not be a fatal jurisdictional error.
The writ petition was dismissed. Both section 50C and section 43CA contain a deeming provision which seeks to impute to the asset transferred a value ascribable to that asset even if it be sold by the assessee at a value below the circle rate; the Assessing Officer therefore had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment when the assessee had shown a sale consideration below the circle rate (paragraph 10). A misapprehension as to whether the escapement arose under section 50C or section 43CA did not constitute a jurisdictional error invalidating the section 148 proceedings.
The Court found merit in the Revenue's contention on a combined reading of sections 50C and 43CA: read together they indicate that an asset transferred, whether a capital asset or otherwise, sold below the circle rate must be valued at the government-prescribed rate for the computation of profit or loss. Since the deeming mechanism operates in either case, the material before the Assessing Officer — that the consideration was below the circle rate — supported the requisite belief, and the identification of the wrong one of the two provisions went to the merits and not to jurisdiction (paragraph 10).
Thus, both provisions contain a 'deeming provision' which seeks to impute to the asset so transferred a value ascribable to that asset even if it be sold by the assessee at a value below the circle rate. The AO therefore had sufficient reason to believe that income has escaped assessment when the assessee had shown that the sale consideration received by it for the asset, whether it be a capital asset or not, was below that of the circle rate and a misapprehension of whether the assessee had presumably escaped income under either Section 50C or 43CA would not, in our view, constitute a jurisdictional error so as to render the Section 148 proceedings invalid.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Delhi High Court held that sections 50C and 43CA both contain a deeming provision imputing to the asset transferred a value ascribable to it even where it is sold below the circle rate — the first for capital assets, the second for assets other than capital assets — so the Assessing Officer had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped assessment. A misapprehension as to which of the two applied was not a jurisdictional error invalidating the section 148 proceedings, and the writ petition was dismissed. This was decided by the High Court (Yashwant Varma J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J) and bears on section 50C, section 43CA, section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 17527/2022 and CM APPL. 55918/2022 (Delhi High Court); Assessment Year 2017-18. This is the point at which the section 50C and section 43CA analogues meet, and it is a warning about where the classification argument is worth taking. Whether the property was a capital asset or stock in trade decides which provision governs and, importantly, the tolerance limits and the agreement-date conditions differ between them — but it does not decide whether the reopening was validly initiated. At the section 148 stage the Court will look at whether there was material for a belief that income escaped, not at whether the officer named the right section. The classification argument still has to be made, but in the assessment or the appeal, where the correct provision and its own provisos will determine the quantum. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not build a writ challenge on the officer having cited section 50C where section 43CA applies, or the reverse. This judgment closes that route in Delhi.
The petitioner, a property developer, sold one of the floors of the property under development for a consideration below the applicable circle rate. Following the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India v Ashish Agarwal, a notice under section 148A(b) was issued for AY 2017-18 on 20 May 2022 on information that the sale consideration was below the stamp duty valuation, an order under section 148A(d) followed on 29 July 2022 and a notice under section 148 was issued the same day. The reasons proceeded on the footing that section 50C was attracted. In response the petitioner explained the circumstances that had constrained it to sell below the circle rate, and contended that the Assessing Officer had erred in resorting to section 50C because the presumption that provision raises is in respect of the transfer of a capital asset, whereas the petitioner was a property developer and the floors it developed were in the nature of stock in trade. The Assessing Officer nevertheless held section 148 rightly invoked. Before the Court, counsel for the Revenue submitted that even assuming the property was not a capital asset, the officer could resort to section 43CA for assets other than capital assets, and that the mere mention of section 50C would not be a fatal jurisdictional error. The matter was decided on 2025-01-14 by the High Court (Yashwant Varma J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was dismissed. Both section 50C and section 43CA contain a deeming provision which seeks to impute to the asset transferred a value ascribable to that asset even if it be sold by the assessee at a value below the circle rate; the Assessing Officer therefore had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment when the assessee had shown a sale consideration below the circle rate (paragraph 10). A misapprehension as to whether the escapement arose under section 50C or section 43CA did not constitute a jurisdictional error invalidating the section 148 proceedings.
The Court found merit in the Revenue's contention on a combined reading of sections 50C and 43CA: read together they indicate that an asset transferred, whether a capital asset or otherwise, sold below the circle rate must be valued at the government-prescribed rate for the computation of profit or loss. Since the deeming mechanism operates in either case, the material before the Assessing Officer — that the consideration was below the circle rate — supported the requisite belief, and the identification of the wrong one of the two provisions went to the merits and not to jurisdiction (paragraph 10). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Thus, both provisions contain a 'deeming provision' which seeks to impute to the asset so transferred a value ascribable to that asset even if it be sold by the assessee at a value below the circle rate. The AO therefore had sufficient reason to believe that income has escaped assessment when the assessee had shown that the sale consideration received by it for the asset, whether it be a capital asset or not, was below that of the circle rate and a misapprehension of whether the assessee had presumably escaped income under either Section 50C or 43CA would not, in our view, constitute a jurisdictional error so as to render the Section 148 proceedings invalid." The decision followed or applied Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal — the section 148A(b) notice was issued pursuant to it.
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-01-14 and is reported as W.P.(C) 17527/2022 and CM APPL. 55918/2022 (Delhi High Court); Assessment Year 2017-18. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 50C, section 43CA, section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 147, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petition was dismissed. Both section 50C and section 43CA contain a deeming provision which seeks to impute to the asset transferred a value ascribable to that asset even if it be sold by the assessee at a value below the circle rate; the Assessing Officer therefore had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment when the assessee had shown a sale consideration below the circle rate (paragraph 10). A misapprehension as to whether the escapement arose under section 50C or section 43CA did not constitute a jurisdictional error invalidating the section 148 proceedings. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening, Capital Gains and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 50C, section 43CA, section 148, section 148A(b), section 148A(d), section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Yashwant Varma J and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Take the classification point in the assessment instead: if the property is stock in trade, section 50C does not apply at all and section 43CA does, with its own provisos on the agreement date and the requirement that part of the consideration be received by an account payee cheque, account payee bank draft or electronic clearing on or before the agreement date. Check which tolerance limit applies to your provision and your year before conceding any difference — the section 43CA limits and the section 50C third proviso were amended on different footings and at different times. Where you do want to challenge reopening, challenge it on the grounds that work — approval under section 151, the time limits in section 149, the adequacy of the information — rather than on the section number in the reasons. Keep in mind that the same shortfall is capable of being charged on the buyer under section 56(2)(x); raise that in mitigation if the buyer has been separately assessed.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed; no appeal history or later treatment was searched for. The holding is confined to the validity of initiation under section 148; the Court did not decide whether the floor sold was a capital asset or stock in trade, nor which of sections 50C and 43CA governs the computation, and this entry should not be read as authority on either. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This page resisted verbatim transcription. Two full-page fetches returned a condensed rendering rather than raw text. Paragraph 5 and paragraph 10 were recovered verbatim through fragment views and are the only text quoted or closely relied on here; the page carries a footer recording that the order was downloaded from the Delhi High Court server on 7 February 2025. The count of eleven numbered paragraphs and the Assessment Year 2017-18 were confirmed on verification from the plain document page and from a fragment view respectively, and are established; the framing of paragraphs 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 still comes from the condensed rendering and is not. The consideration of Rs.3,70,00,000 against a circle rate of Rs.4,41,51,033, and the difference of Rs.71,51,033, also come from that rendering and were not confirmed against raw text. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was dismissed. Both section 50C and section 43CA contain a deeming provision which seeks to impute to the asset transferred a value ascribable to that asset even if it be sold by the assessee at a value below the circle rate; the Assessing Officer therefore had sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment when the assessee had shown a sale consideration below the circle rate (paragraph 10). A misapprehension as to whether the escapement arose under section 50C or section 43CA did not constitute a jurisdictional error invalidating the section 148 proceedings.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?