TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he District Collector. It further appears that there was no sale of the land in the past except the sale of ½ portion of the said land in the year under appeal and the remaining ½ portion of land in the previous year. Both the parcels of land were sold to the same party. All throughout, the assessee was the owner of the land in question and no transfer of rights in favour of any third party ever t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, Ahmedabad in ITA No.2031/Ahd/2005 as also the order dated 21.07.2006 in MA No.83/Ahd/2006 raising the following substantial question of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the land in question was a business asset and therefore, liable to be taxed as business profit and not capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as executed on 08.06.2001. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 10.03.2005 declaring that the sale was an adventure in the nature of trade and therefore, the excess amount received on sale of property was business income. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2007. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the land in question. Therefore, the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to the documents on record. 5. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, supported the impugned orders of the Tribunal and submitted that the assessee was involved in the sale of different plots of land and therefore, the profit on such sales w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no transfer of rights in favour of any third party ever took place until the portion of said land was sold in the year preceeding the relevant year. Therefore, under no circumstances, the transaction could have been termed a business adventure. In our opinion, the Tribunal committed serious error in upholding the order of CIT(A) of declaring the transaction a business adventure since it is a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
