2019 (2) TMI 802

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 6,35,91,247/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the facts of the case that the assessee company is engaged in the business of real estate, sale and purchase of land for profit is one of the business of real estate, sale and purchase of land for profit is one of the businesses of the assessee company and it has wrongly shown such business income as capital gain whereas it should declare this income from business and profession. ii) The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh ground(s) of appeal and / or delete or amend any of the ground(s) of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 27.6.2016 has allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.6.2016 the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the Order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. 5. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... gain and the AO and Ld. CIT(A) were not right in treating the income as business income. Accordingly, the AO is directed to assess the income as capital gain. Thus the appeal is allowed." 6.1 We further note that against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Department had gone in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was also decided vide ITA No. 287/2016 dated 03.5.2016 by holding as under:- "5. Having heard Mr. Dileep Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and having examined the orders of the AO, CIT(A) and the impugned order of the ITAT. The court is not persuaded to agree with the Revenue's submission that the impugned order of the ITAT is perverse. In the facts and circumstances of the ....