TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has acted in a bonafide manner and the explanation is accepted. As such, the aforesaid finding of fact should rest with the conclusion of the Tribunal since the judicial scrutiny by this Court is limited to only substantial questions of law. We are not at all impressed by the submission for two fold reasons. One, is that appreciation of evidence is once again a question of fact and not a question of law. The second, is that it is not a matter where the Tribunal has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case under which the income was offered by the assessee as the income from house property by submission of revised returns and payment of tax even before the proceedings were initiated by the department a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration to the rival submissions. The assessee received built up area of the flats of 10,931 sq.ft. during the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2007-08 i.e., on 1.11.2006. The share of property which the assessee received from the builder was let out by the assessee and income from such letting was offered to tax by the assessee under the head income from house property . The return of income was filed by the assessee for A.Y.2007-08 on 24.10.07 declaring total income of ₹ 36,04,060 comoprising of income from property of ₹ 33,88,276 and income from business of ₹ 2, 15, 779. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 31.10.2008. There was a survey u/s.133A of the Act conducted in the case of M/s. VBDPL, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in not raising any legal issue with regard to the year of taxability of capital gain and validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings was also rightly treated as a circumstance showing the bonafides of the assessee by the CIT(A). It was open to the Assessee to have taken a stand that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court case of Dr.T.K.Dayalu (supra), capital gain i n the case of transfer of capital assets under Joint Development agreement will be only the year in which the Joint Development Agreement is entered into and possession given to the developer for developer. 14. The Assessee paid taxes much before the issue of the notice u/s 148 and had also duly filed the revised computation of income. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id any litigation with the department has accepted the addition and did not file any appeal on the addition made though the entire expenditure is backed up with clear documentary proof. 15. the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) has discussed the approach to be adopted in cases such as that of the Assessee. The assessee- company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 27th October, 2004 declaring income of ₹ 16.17 lakh along with tax audit report. The case was selected for scrutiny. At the time of assessment, it came to light that a survey under section 133A was conducted on the assessee on 16.12.2003. During the course of survey, certain document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts on the Revenue to show that the amount in question constituted the income and not otherwise. The Apex Court held that surrender of income with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelise the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the Income-tax Department are not recognized type of defence under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It held that the law does not absolve the assessee from concealment penalty merely because a voluntary disclosure of concealed income is made. 16. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary and the surrender was in view of the detection made by Assessing Officer. It is not surrender of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant has acted in a bonafide manner and the explanation is accepted. As such, the aforesaid finding of fact should rest with the conclusion of the Tribunal since the judicial scrutiny by this Court is limited to only substantial questions of law. 5. However, Mr.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-revenue attempted to contend that the requisite documentary evidence with regard to any opinion by a lawyer had not come on record and therefore, it can be said that the finding recorded by the Tribunal for the bonafide explanation by the assessee is without their being any proper material on record. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the documents and the material on record before r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
