Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1207 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTClassification of services - real estate agent service or not - sale of agricultural plot - in the books of accounts the amount was shown as 'OTHER INCOME' - period 2005-06 and 2006-07 - suppression of facts or not - penalty. HELD THAT:- The appellant entered into an agreement to purchase of land from the original owner, but did not execute the sale deed in its favour. The appellant got sale deed executed in favour of third party directly from the original owner of land. The appellant first entered into an agreement with the registered owner of land and paid a nominal amount as advance. It was mentioned in the agreement that he is having rights to sell the land to some other person from the date of execution of sale agreement - it cannot be accepted that transaction of sale and purchase of land is a simple sale and purchase of immovable property. When a person from the first day enters into an agreement to purchase some property with an intention to sell it to some other person, it cannot be said that the transaction was of a transaction of simple sale and purchase of immovable property, in fact, the said act attracts the definition of “Real Estate Agent” and the participation of appellant in view of aforesaid transaction comes within the purview of “Service Provider”. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The act of appellant clearly shows that he suppressed the facts, therefore, the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of knowledge of the Departmental Authority as provided under sub-section 3(ii) of Section 11A of the Act of 1944 - the appellant has not shown specific source from which the income was received though income was showed in books of account which is a clear act of suppressing correct facts. For the aforementioned reason, the limitation will be counted from the date of knowledge. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer for imposition of penalty under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act of 1994 has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the CESTAT - there is no error or infirmity in the said findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the CESTAT - Penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|