K R PALANISAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, the constitutional validity of Section 50c of the Income-tax Act, 1961 introduced by Finance Act 2002 with effect from the assessment year 2003-2004 is questioned.

(2.) THE grounds of attack and argument made for and against aone and the same, though the transferred capital asset involved the consideration received is different in each of thee, which is immaterial to decide the validity o pr, Writ Petition No. 4387 of 2003 is taken up as a typica se for the purpose of narration of facts: the writ petitioner K. R. Palanisamy is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Tirupur. The assessee on 3. 6. 1981 purchased plot Nos. 9 and 10 from one S. Krishnamoorthy and S. Subramani and was in possession and enjoymen same. The assessee decided to sell the said property. Plot No. 9 was sold to one E. Vignesh Velavan on 15. 7. 2002. He was able to get only a sale consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs due to recession. However, the guideline value for the said plot for the purpose of stamp duty was Rs. 9,89,140/ -. Similarly, in respect of Plot No. 10, it was sold to one A. K. Muthusamy on 26. 8. 2002. The petitioner was able to get a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as sale consideration, whereas the guideline value for the said property was Rs. 9,90,945/ -. Thereafter the affidavit is silent and there is nothing stated about the further course of action taken by the assessing officer. No cause of action for challenging the statutory provision has been stated. However, the petitioner has chosen to challenge Section 50c on the aforesaid facts. As the constitutional validity has been challenged, we are of the view that the facts of the other cases are not very material.

(3.) MR. V. Ramachandran, Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners/assessees spearheaded the argument, which was adopted and supplemented by Mr. Jayakumar, Mr. Balachandran, Mr. Vaideeswaran and other learned counsels appearing in respect of their respective cases with reference to the transaction made therein on the following grounds: