TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business properly. We have examined the application and the affidavit filed by the assessee/appellant seeking condonation of delay. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the delay in filing of the appeal is on account of medical exigencies. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu and Others Vs. Gobardhan Sao and Others reported as 2002 AIR 1201 has held that acceptance of explanation furnished seeking condonation of delay should be the rule and refusal an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting parties. Taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates either by default or inaction. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in various other decisions has taken similar view in accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee for condoning the delay in filing of appeal. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the reasons fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the name of his son Akram Khan for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The adjoining land admeasuring 2 Acres 9 Gunthas was purchased by Santosh Vinayakrao Paradhe and Ramrao Bhagaji Khade Patil. The assessee, Santosh Vinayakrao Paradhe and Ramrao Bhagaji Khade Patil on 04-07-2008 entered into Joint Venture (JV) Agreement for plotting and development of entire land. JV Agreement for the development of aforesaid land is at pages 79 & 80 of the paper book. However, the development project as planned by the assessee along with two other persons could not take of, consequently project was shelved and land was sold to third party vide registered Sale deed dated 26-08-2008 for a consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The assessee was having 70% share in joint venture and hence had share Rs. 35,00,000/- in the sale consideration of land. The assessee offered profit from sale of land as business income. The Assessing Officer held that the land sold was capital asset and the gain arising from same is Short Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer further invoked the provisions of section 50C for the purpose of valuation of land. The Assessing Officer adopted Collector rate i.e. Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paper book is also a self serving document as the same is unregistered and does not bear the signature of all the parties to Joint Venture. The assessee has failed to produce any document on record indicating that any development activities were carried out on the land. A perusal of the sale deed of land would show that the land has been sold to an agriculturist. Hence, there was no commercial exploitation of land by the assessee at any point of time. 5.1 As regards ground No. 2 the ld. DR submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has sought remand report from the Assessing Officer on the explanation furnished by the assessee. The assessee has failed to rebut the contents of remand report and hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed the addition to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- 6. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has assailed the impugned order on two counts : i. Treating the gain on sale of land as Capital Gain. ii. Confirming the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank. 7. The assessee pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Venture Agreement at page 79 of the paper book shows that the same has been executed on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. The endorsement on the Stamp Paper shows that the same was purchased on 04-07-2008 i.e. shortly after purchase of land. The Joint Venture Agreement has been signed by all the three coowners of the land specifying the share of profit on sale of plots and the activities to be performed by the parties to Joint Venture for development of land. Thus, the sequence of events highlighted above negates the reasoning of „afterthought‟. The Joint Venture Agreement in the present case is in the nature of Memorandum of Understanding between the owners of land for collectively developing and plotting of land. Joint Venture Agreement does not purport to transfer any right in land or land to the third party or parties to the Joint Venture. The Joint Venture does not contain any contract to transfer for consideration, any immovable property. The Joint Venture Agreement in the present case does not fall within the category of documents of which registration is compulsory u/s. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Hence, the second reasoning given by the Revenue to....