9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: i. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in holding that transaction is a business transaction when there was only one transaction and not series of transactions? ii. Whether the learned Tribunal has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act? 3. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that in fact, only the substantial question of law at (i) above arises for determination and should the same be answered in favour of the appellant, then, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2013 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) will have to be set aside and the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 26.03.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant-assessee appealed to CIT (Appeals) vide ITA No.163/MRG/10 (AY 2007-08). 8. Soon thereafter, the respondent no.2 issued notices under Sections 147 and 148 of the I.T. Act to the appellant-assessee seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2007-08. After hearing the assessee, revised assessment order was made on 21.02.2011 computing the entire income of the appellant-assessee as "business income" and bringing the same to tax. The appellant-assessee therefore, preferred yet another appeal being ITA No.348/MRG/10-11 to the CIT (Appeals). 9. The CIT (Appeals), disposed of both the appeals by common judgment and order dated 26.03.2013. Both the appeals were allowed and the orders of the AO were set aside. 10. The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itute income from business. He relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax - AIR 1955 SC 176. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Razaq defends the impugned judgment and order made by the ITAT on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein. She submits that the finding recorded by the ITAT is borne out by the material on record and therefore warrants no interference in this appeal. 13. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 14. The main issue involved in this appeal is whether the proceeds from sale of the properties vide sale deed dated 13.07.2006 can be regarded as income from business or not. 15. The appellant-assessee was constituted vide Deed of Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ness of the appellant-assessee. 17. Besides, we find that both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) have noted that by sale deed dated 13.07.2006, the appellant-assessee sold not merely the agricultural property but also another property ad-measuring 2,525 sq.mtrs. to Headway Resort Line Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, this is not a case of sale of a solitary property, by way of a one off transaction. The appellant-assessee, in terms of Clause 2 of the Partnership Deed is clearly involved in buying and selling properties situated in various places in Goa either wholly or in plots. By sale deed dated 13.07.2006, the appellant-assessee has indeed sold the properties purchased by it for a considerable profit. This material, according to u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
