9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi had withdrawn his offer to purchase the subject property. The further cheques issued by the respondent had been dishonoured, which led the respondent to permit forfeiting the advance/part payment. In respect of the manner in which the vendor has shown the receipt, we asked Mr. Pinto whether it has shown its receipt on capital account to avoid paying taxes. Mr. Pinto responded by stating he is not aware. In any case it is a settled position that nature of receipt in the hands of the payee will not determine the nature of payment i.e. capital or revenue in the hands of the payer. The respondent – assessee is dealer in immovable property and it is for a businessman to decide the manner in which he should conduct his business and take steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that he entered into an agreement to purchase property in Pune with one M/s. Emtech Solutions (P) Ltd. in terms of agreement of sale dated 12th January, 2009 for consideration of ₹ 12.40 crores. Time was the essence of the contract and the amount of ₹ 12.40 crores was to be paid in installments as set out in schedule to agreement dated 12th January, 2009. The respondent had paid the cheques aggregating to ₹ 2.40 crores before the execution of agreement on 12th January, 2009. However, the respondent was unable to make subsequent payment leading to forfeiture of amount of ₹ 2.40 crores paid by the respondent assessee as part payment. The respondent explained that he entered into this transaction as he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that cheques amounting to ₹ 1 crore issued by him had been dishonoured by the bank. It also has warned the respondent of dire consequences for dishonour of the cheque. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, to save his reputation and to avoid unnecessary litigation, the respondent agreed to forfeiture of ₹ 2.40 crores in terms of the agreement for sale dated 12th January, 2009. Further, the Tribunal also records the fact that the vendor having confirmed the transaction with the respondent to the Assessing Officer, there could be no doubt about its genuineness. 6. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. The grievance of the Revenue as articulated by Mr.Pinto is that the agreement between the vendor and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
