Ompm/5/2017 Of Hemant Popli v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

20.3.2017 ITA No. ______ of 2017 Present: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, vice Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate, for the respondent. OMP(M) No. 5 of 2017 For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal, which in our considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Appeal be registered. ITA No.________/2017 Admittedon the following substantial questions of law:- (i)Whether the ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that profits on sale of property were assessable under the head business and profession. Though no finding has been recorded that the assessee-appellant was engaged in the business of real estate and moreso, entire investment was declared by the appellant in the schedule of fixed assets, which has not been disputed by the revenue? Tribunal is right in law in holding that profits on sale of property were assessable under the head business and profession. Though no finding has been recorded that the assessee-appellant was engaged in the business of real estate and moreso, entire investment was declared by the appellant in the schedule of fixed assets, which has not been disputed by the revenue? Records be called for. (Sanjay Karol) Judge. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge. 20[th] March, 2017. (kck)