TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant, as business income for the impugned assessment year 1999-00 liable to be considered as undisclosed income in the block assessment year under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 3. Without prejudice to the above the said amount is not taxable as Business Income and the Authorities ought to have held the same as capital receipt under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 4. The Authorities below failed to appreciate that the Appellant has and continues to hold the property at Ramagondanahalli as investment only and not as a business asset under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 5. The Authorities below are not justified In holding that the property at Ramagondanahalli was a business asset and not a capital asset as claimed by the Appellant and consequently disallowing the same and treating it as business income which is erroneous under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case 6. The Authorities failed to appreciate that the Appellant had not even set up the business of real estate let alone commenced the same and treat it as business income under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 7. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad not even set up the business of real estate let alone commenced the same and treat it as business income under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 7. The Authorities below failed to give an opportunity to the Appellant to prove the veracity of his claim of deduction of the forfeited amount from the advances u/ s 51 of the Act and the true nature of the property along with evidences which is against the principle of natural justice and consequently the order deserves to be cancelled under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 8. The Appellant denies his liability to be charged to interest u/s. 158BF A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity". 4. At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that this is second round of appeal before the Tribunal and he submitted a copy of the Tribunal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SC). 6. I have considered the rival submissions. First of all I reproduce para 4 & 5 of the order of ld. CIT(A)'s order which will show the basis of the decision of the ld. CIT(A). "4. Before me in appeal, it was contended that the appellant was not carrying on the business of real estate and the returns of income with statements of total income from AY 1992-93 to 2000-01, comprised in the block period, were filed to substantiate this claim. It was pointed out that the appellant has offered capital gains from sale of property for the assessment year 1997-98 and 1999-2000 and the AO has assessed the same under the head Capital Gains. It is only for the AY 1998-99 that the appellant, in respect of a certain project Crystal Springs, sold certain lands and offered income under the head "business." 4.1 Except for A Y 1998-99 the business income disclosed by the assessee each year was from running a video game parlour. It was argued by the appellant that the AO had been swayed by the fact that the partnership firm in which the appellant was a partner i.e. Mis HM Construction was engaged in real estate business but, according to the AR, this could not automatically imply that the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the R.G Halli project, therefore, where the purchasers of plots had also been identified and advances taken from them, represents the next link in this line of business The nomenclature of the investment in the balance sheet additionally testifies to this fact. The AO's arguments, therefore, are found to have merits and the appellant's claims are not substantiated by his own evidences. 5.2 In view of the discussion as above, I am inclined to agree with the AO's conclusion and the grounds raised on the matter of forfeiture of Rs. 16,50,000, therefore, fail". 7. From the above paras reproduced from the order of the ld.CIT(A), it can be seen that the ld. CIT(A) has noted in para 4.1 of his order, as reproduced above that except for AY: 1998-99, the business income disclosed by the assessee each year was from running a video game parlour. It is also noted by the ld. CIT(A) that the partnership firm in which the assessee was a partner i.e. M/s HM Construction was engaged in the real estate business and it was the claim of the assessee that this fact alone cannot imply automatically that the assessee was also in the same business. In spite of this assertion of the assessee before the l....