AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the appellant to treat the transfer receipts as "business income", while also rejecting the claim of the appellant with respect to the cost of acquisition of the land at Rs.1.80 crores and deduction of commission payment to one T.P.Anand as share of profit. 2.At the outset, it is necessary to state that though the above appeals were listed on the following dates i.e., 09.06.2022 and 21.06.2022, there was no representation for the appellant. Again, when the matters were listed on 05.07.2022, after printing the name of the appellant in the cause list, there was no representation on her behalf, either in person or through any learned counsel. In such circumstances, this court has no other option except to dispose the appeals, on merits. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....income" was rejected by the Assessing Officer and the same was treated as income under the head "capital gains" (short term). Further, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the claim of the appellant with respect to the cost of acquisition of land at Rs.1.80 crores, was unacceptable, since the registered sale deed to which the appeallant was a party, revealed that the cost of acquisition/ purchase of the land was only Rs.1.40 Crores, while it is the submission of the appellant that the cost of acquisition was Rs.1.80 Crores on the basis of an alleged agreement entered into between the appellant and one Shri. A.Mubarak Ali. (iv) That apart, the appellant claimed that she had entered into an MOU with one Shri. Anand for clearing encumb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toring the order of assessment insofar as the claim of deduction of the amounts paid to Anand was restricted to a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, though the same was enhanced to 7% by the First Appellate Authority. The present appeals also challenge the determination of the cost of acquisition of land at Rs.1.40 Crores rejecting the claim of the appellant that the same was Rs.1.80 Crores. 5.Heard the submission of Mrs. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and also perused the documents enclosd in the typed set of papers, including the orders of the Authorities below. 6.We are of the view that the appeals challenging the order of the Tribunal, may have to fail for the following reasons: (a) Receipts whether "capital gains" or business inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to disturb the said finding of the Lower Authorities. Keeping in mind the above findings of fact, we are of the view that the concurrent finding of all the three authorities namely, Assessing Officer, First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal is based on evidence and the finding that the appellant had not let in evidence in support of his claim as business income is again concurrent and made on the basis and on consideration of the material on record. Hence, the same being essentially a finding of fact that the sale of Industrial Site is one to be assessed under the head "capital gains" and not under "business income", the concurrent finding of fact by all the authorities below in the absence of any evidence to the contrary being let in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lis and encroachments apart from having the site fenced and clearing the bushes and trees and removal of debris, the lower authorities and the Tribunal found that there is no mentioning of encroachments or any issue qua dimension of the property nor is there any evidence let in by the appellant to show that the said Anand as a matter of fact removed the encroachments, fenced the sites cleaned the bushes trees and removed the debris. It was thus found by the Tribunal that the order of the Assessing Officer fixing the payment for the alleged services by the said Anand in the absence of any evidence let in, at Rs. 2 lakhs was in order and enhanced it to 7% by the First Appellate Authority, in the absence of any evidence, was unacceptable. Seco....