9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the builders M/s Ekta Supreme Corporation. The assessee was asked to explain that why this income has not been shown in the original return on 26-2-2010. It was explained that this amount was not shown as a sum received as compensation on account of delay of possession of the flat. However, the revised return was filed before the AO showing the amount of ₹ 2,10,000/- as income. Accordingly, the assessment was completed. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), before whom it was submitted that in fact the amount of ₹ 2,10,000/- is not an income either from business or from other sources as this is a compensation and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as revenue rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s right to challenge the issue before the appellate authority if the issue is legal one. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra), has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the question of law, which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that same was not raised before the lower authorities. 9. In fact in this case, an amount was assessed by the AO on the basis of amount shown in the return. Before the Tribunal, it was submitted that the amount shown in the return is not taxable and, therefore, a legal ground was taken. However, the Tribunal dismissed the ground of the assessee and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation on delay of possession of the flat, which is a capital asset. This contention was rejected by the learned CIT(A), before whom the issue was raised for the first time. In my view, the CIT(A) should have considered the aspect that the receipt is not taxable being capital in nature. However, learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that the assessee himself has shown in the revised return filed by herself. 11. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement Limited (supra), wherein the question was raised as to whether the Tribunal has erred in law on facts in holding that the amount of ₹ 8,50,000/- received by the assessee was not taxable as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee?, after consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
