Itxa/1951/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-10, Mumbai v. Landmark Builders Pvt.ltd., Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1951 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax.... Appellant. V/s. Landmark Builders Pvt.Ltd.... Respondent. J.S.Saluja for the appellant. Ms.V.B.Patel for the respondent. P.C.: CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 1[st] October 2009. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2.The question sought to be raised in this appeal is considered by the Tribunal in para-9 of the impugned order in the following words: � ..... The search was not carried out at the premises of the assessee. It has every right to file a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act. Such return was revised before the receipt of notice under section 158 BD of the Act. In these facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the profit on sale of Vinay Bhavya property does not fall within the meaning of undisclosed income provided in section 158 B(b) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has made a lucid enunciation of law and facts in para 56 and 57 of the impugned order. After going through this paras we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld.CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 3.Having seen the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, we see no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.