2017 (3) TMI 1055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eks to re-open an assessment for the Assessment year 2009-10. 2. The reasons recorded in support of the impugned notices and communicated to the petitioner reads as under: " Information has been received in this office that the above mentioned assessee has sold property in Mumbai to Shaina N, Chudasana, PAN AAAPC6147D during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 for a consideration of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-. However, the market value of the same property was Rs. 3,22,52,500/-. Therefore, the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are clearly attracted in this case. After verifying Income Tax Return details of the assessee it is conclusively proved that the assessee has understated income in the returns of income f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... relevant to subject Assessment year. Further, the issue of Section 50C of the Act being applicable to lease hold rights are concerned, the Assessing Officer did not deal with the same and left open for determination during the regular assessment proceedings. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of the petitioner submits that the issue of transfer of leasehold interest in the subject property was done by the petitioners in the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-09. According to him transfer was part performance of possession of property was also handed over to the assignee at that time when consideration of Rs. 1.90 crores was received and submits that so far as Section 50C of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rved that the aforesaid decision of this Court did not independently rule appropriate interpretation of Section 50C of the Act. The Court refused to entertain the Revenue's appeal for the reason that the impugned Order of the Tribunal had followed its earlier decision in case of Atul G Puranik vs ITO [2011] 132 ITD 499. The Revenue had accepted the same and in appeal from the Order of the Tribunal in Atul G. Purnaik (supra) was preferred. 8. In the aforesaid background the Court refused to interfere with the Order of the Tribunal as there were no distinguishing features either on facts or in law as reiterated in GreenField Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd. (supra) from that existing in Atul G. Puranik (supra). 9. The other alternative con....