TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eenfield Hotels & Estates (P) Ltd. (2016 (12) TMI 353 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) is concerned, it is observed 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 (5) TMI 576 - ITAT, Mumbai]. The Revenue had accepted the same and in appeal from the Order of the Tribunal in Atul G. Purnaik (supra) was preferred. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee it is conclusively proved that the assessee has understated income in the returns of income for A.Y. 2009-10, amounting to ₹ 1,32,52,500/- On the basis of aforesaid information, available records with me and after duly applying my mind, I have reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax, as indicate above, to the tune of ₹ 1,32,52,500/-, or any other income chargeable to tax which comes to my notice subsequently in the course of proceedings for re-assessment, has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner filed his objections to the aforesaid reasons in support of the impugned notices. The objections filed were twofold as under: - (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assignee at that time when consideration of ₹ 1.90 crores was received and submits that so far as Section 50C of the Act is concerned this Court has in Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- II v. Greenfield Hotels Estates (P) Ltd. [389 ITR 68 ] has taken a view that Section 50C of the Act would have no application for computing capital gains on transfer of lease hold rights in land and buildings. The aforesaid decision upheld the view of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Assessing Officer could not have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 6. We note that the very issue with regard to transfer having taken place in the Assessment Year 2008-09 by way of part performance as contended by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nField Hotels Estates (P) Ltd. (supra) from that existing in Atul G. Puranik (supra). 9. The other alternative contention of Mr. Joshi in view of the matter decision of the Tribunal held that the transfer of leasehold rights in land and building is not covered by Section 50C of the Act is what certainly requires consideration. 10. However, it may not be noted that in its objections which the petitioners had filed to the reasons for re-opening notice petitioner had not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer the decision of the Tribunal in its face. In the result the application of this to the Tribunal decision to the facts of the present case would be matter which the Assessing Officer would have dealt with and disposing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
