TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isclosures were made to buy peace and on condition that the penalty proceedings would not be instituted. Both grounds not found favour with the Supreme Court in case of MAK DATA P Ltd Vs. CIT [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT]. The assessee has not built up any case for arguing that the receipt in question was not in the nature of income. Merely by stating so and relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Karda Constructions Pvt Ltd. [2013 (2) TMI 740 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the assessee cannot hope to establish the same. The assessee had made disclosure of additional income. To dislodge his own declaration that the disclosures did not relate to income the assessee had to lay down a foundation which in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant assessee pressed following question for our consideration:- Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that advances for booking of flats is income for the purpose of Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) and levying penalty for the same? 3. Appellant assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. The assessee s premises were subjected to search and seizure operation. Statements of responsible persons were recorded leading to issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed return of income in which additional income was disclosed but it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e independent of the assessment proceedings. Nevertheless, the assessee cannot merely raise a contention that the advance receipt was really not in the nature of income and therefore, no penalty could be levied. In the appeal before the Commissioner, the assessee had not taken any such elaborate ground. 6. We have perused the appeal memo of the appeal before the Commissioner which nowhere explains the assessee s stand that the amount in question did not represent the income or the reasons for the same. Further, as noted, the assessee confined the appeal to a single ground namely that the Assessing Officer had committed an error in leaving the penalty. We also notice that the main thrust of the assessee s contention in the appeal was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
