TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 969
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2018 i.e. with the delay of 503 days. We have examined the contents of affidavit filed by the assessee explaining delay in filing of the appeal. We are satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal is not on account of negligence attributable to the assessee. The explanation furnished by the assessee appears to be bonafide and the same is accepted. 2.1 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 liberally accepting the explanation furnished by the assessee for condoning de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same was overdue. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 03-03-2010 directing the assessee to file return on or before 12-03-2010. The assessee filed return of income on 16-08-2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,77,35,950/-. In the said return of income, the assessee had declared income from sale of land as "Business Income". Thereafter, the assessee filed another return of income on 17-03-2011 revising its income from sale of land as Rs. 7,84,51,430/-. In the subsequent return / revised return, the assessee offered profit on sale of land as capital gains. The Assessing Officer did not accept revised return of income and held the same as non-est. The matter travelled upto the Tribunal. The Tribunal in appeal by the assessee in ITA No.1445/PN/2012 decided on 14-05-2013 restored the issues raised in appeal to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the revised return filed by the assessee as valid return of income. 4. In accordance with the directions of Tribunal, the Assessing Officer framed fresh assessment vide order dated 27-02-2015 on the revised return filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the income from sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e deleted. 3. Levy of Penal interests The Appellant, on merits, denies his liability to penal interest. 6. Shri Pramod Kumar Parida, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee carried multiple business activities viz. dairy business, supply of building material and real estate business. In the year 2002, the assessee had acquired agricultural land with multiple impediments. The assessee with great effort was able to settle the claim of various parties and removed the encroachments from the land. In the year 2006, the land was transferred in the name of assessee vide Registered Sale Deed and the name of assessee was also entered in the land revenue records. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR referred to agreement to sell dated 25-07-2002 (at pages 195 to 207 of Paper Book), registered sale agreement dated 04-08-2006 (at pages 251 to 270 of Paper Book). Recording of assessee's name in land revenue records on 18-08-2006 (at pages 328 to 371 of Paper Book). The ld. AR submitted that till the time assessee was holding land, the assessee carried agricultural activities on the land in question, and the same was evident from 7/12 extracts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended that the authorities below in an arbitrary and unjustified manner have rejected the expenditure incurred by the assessee on transfer of land. The AO in the assessment order has time and again mentioned that the assessee has not provided requisite details, whereas, the assessee has furnished all the details of expenditure claimed during assessment proceedings. The ld. AR referred to the Paper Book No.I containing 187 pages wherein the assessee pointed that the documents to substantiate expenditure and reimbursement of expenditure were furnished before the AO. The ld. AR further pointed that the purchaser of land vide different communications placed on record (at pages 12 to 28 of Paper Book) have confirmed that the amounts paid are reimbursement of expenditure. All the reimbursements are made by way of cheques and thus reimbursement of expenditure is not part of sale consideration. The confirmations filed by the assessee before the Department were neither considered by the AO nor considered by the CIT(A). The ld. AR finally submitted that statements recorded u/s 133A of the Act without corroborative evidence have no evidentiary value. To support his contentions, ld. AR placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of Income? Answer: Basically, I am engaged in the business of Real Estate- Sale, Purchase of land & Sources of Income is by way of commission on transaction of land. I was also doing Dairy business which was started during the year 2003-04. I am not having any other sources of income other that above two. 1- Real Estate, 2- Dairy business. 5. During the course of same statement (Page No 152 of the Department's Paper Book), the assessee was asked to give details of movable and immovable properties. The same is stated as under: Question No 6: Please give the details of Movable & Immovable property in the name of yourself & your family members? Answer: Myself -Shri Ravindra Joma Bhagat Wife - Smt Reshma Ravindra Bhagat Son - Master Omkar Ravindra Bhagat Daughter - Kumari Aparna Ravindra Bhagat Daughter - Kumari Apeksha Ravindra Bhagat Daughter - Kumari Ankita Ravindra Bhagat My family consist of above members & the details of Movable & Immovable properties are as under: Myself- Bungalow- Stilt +3, admeasuring area of land is 1900 sq. ft. & construction of Bungalow approx 3000 sq. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dha has been referred to as land owner and the assessee has been shown as Power of Attorney holder. Even in the 7/12 Extract of 2006, assessee has been shown as Power of Attorney holder (Page No 372A of the Assessee's Paper Book No.II. 12. The CIT (Appeals) in his Order dated 19.12.2016 has stated that (Page No 114 of Department's Paper Book) "from the documents furnished during the course of appellate proceedings, it is noticed that the appellant enjoys a loan of Rs. 20 lakh and cash credit of Rs. 1.50 lakh from Union Bank of India, Panvel Branch, Panvel vide letter dated 15.03.2004. It is very relevant to point out here that Term Loan and cash credit facilities are all was taken for the purpose of Business of Profession and appellant has not disclosed any income from business or profession in the return of income except for profits and gains from business or profession from sale of land in question". 13. From all the above facts, it is clear that the transactions of this land was adventure in the nature of trade and Apex Court in the case of Raja J. Rameshwar Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [42 ITR 179 SC] has stated as under: "In our opinion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he is engaged to real estate business on commission basis. However, this does not preclude the assessee to purchase the land and held it as capital asset. The Revenue has not furnished any document which indicates that the land was held by the assessee as stock-in-trade or before the sale of land, the assessee had developed the land for commercial purpose. 10. The ld. DR has vehemently argued that the assessee has merely purchased rights in land through unregistered Power of Attorney, hence, conduct of the assessee indicates that the intention of the assessee was to sell the land right from beginning for profit. We do not find merit in the contention of the Revenue. The fact is that registered sale deed of the land in question was executed in favour of the assessee on 4/8/2006. The assessee thereafter sold the land vide registered sale deed dated 3/6/2008 to Nemichand Mehta. If the intention of the assessee would have been to trade in land, the assessee would have done so on the basis of Power of Attorney, without incurring expenditure on executing registered sale deed in his name. The sequence of events and the documents available on record fairly indicates that the intent....