Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 632 - HC - Income TaxProfit on sale of the plot of land - to be assessed under the head of “Capital Gains” OR "business receipts” - Held that:- We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has rendered a finding of fact to the effect that the plot of land is owned by the respondent assessee. This plot was a subject matter of sale during the previous year relevant to the subject assessment year and had always been shown as a fixed asset in its balancesheet. Further, the Tribunal records the fact that the business of the respondent assessee was not of trading in plots of land and, therefore, the amounts received on sale of plot of land which was originally purchased for construction of administrative building could never be taxed as a business income. The impugned order of the Tribunal is unexceptionable in its reasoning. The grievance of the Revenue by placing reliance upon the Goetze (India) Ltd. (2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court) is that no fault can be found with the order of the Assessing Officer in not entertaining a claim in the absence of a Revised return of income. However, this submission overlooks the fact that in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), it was clarified that the same does not deal with the power of Appellate Authority to consider a new point of law. In any case, this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], on consideration of the Apex Court's decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd.(supra) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court], held that the assessee is entitled to raise additional grounds before the Appellate Authority which may not have been raised before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the grievance of the Revenue is unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. (supra). No substantial question of law.
|