AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me during the course of survey in the premises of developer?" 2. We have heard Mr. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue. 3. The discussion in the order of the Tribunal are from paras 11 to 17, which reads as under:- 11. We have considered the rival submissions. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The assessee received built up area of the flats of 10,931 sq.ft. during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 i.e., on 1.11.2006. The share of property which the assessee received from the builder was let out by the assessee and income from such letting was offered to tax by the assessee under the head 'income from house property'. The return of income was filed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regard by the Assessee, it is widely acknowledged that incidence of capital gain tax in a Joint Development Agreement and the year of chargeability of capital gain tax in a Joint Development Agreement is not free from doubt and is always controversial. 13. The subsequent conduct of the Assessee in not raising any legal issue with regard to the year of taxability of capital gain and validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings was also rightly treated as a circumstance showing the bonafides of the assessee by the CIT(A). It was open to the Assessee to have taken a stand that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra), capital gain i n the case of transfer of capital assets under Joint D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... labour payments of Rs. 17,59,087 made to various parties and the mode of payment and has found that labour charges for Rs. 1759087/- have been discharged through bank barring a small expenditure of Rs. 3224/- by cash. It appears to us that the Assessee in order to avoid any litigation with the department has accepted the addition and did not file any appeal on the addition made though the entire expenditure is backed up with clear documentary proof. 15. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) has discussed the approach to be adopted in cases such as that of the Assessee. The assessee- company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 27th October, 2004 declaring income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer between the returned income and assessed income. The burden then is on the assessee to show otherwise, by giving cogent and reliable evidence. When the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. The Apex Court held that surrender of income with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelise the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the Income-tax Department are not recognized type of defence under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It held that the law does not absolve the assessee from concealment penalty merely because a voluntary disclosure of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The aforesaid shows that two authorities one CIT(Appeals) and another, Tribunal, after undertaking the fact finding exercise as to whether the explanation submitted is bonafide or not, has found that the appellant has acted in a bonafide manner and the explanation is accepted. As such, the aforesaid finding of fact should rest with the conclusion of the Tribunal since the judicial scrutiny by this Court is limited to only substantial questions of law. 5. However, Mr.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue attempted to contend that the requisite documentary evidence with regard to any opinion by a lawyer had not come on record and therefore, it can be said that the finding recorded by the Tribunal for the bonafid....