2017 (4) TMI 766 - AT - Income Tax

Mesne profits - Lease in favour of NTPC Ltd expired. However. NTPC Ltd. did not vacate the premises. - The suit for eviction was decreed. Mesne profits @Rs.40/- per sq. ft. with 24% interest was awarded by the Trial Court. - Held that - The case is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench in the case of Narang overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (2) TMI 817 - ITAT MUMBAI) and therefore the mesne profit are not taxable as revenue receipt but has to be treated as capital receipts in view of the arguments and submissions put forth by the ld. counsel reproduced herein above and fully convinced with the said submissions and find no defect in the same.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment of income at a higher amount than declared.
2. Taxability of mesne profit as revenue or capital receipt.
3. Application of previous tribunal decisions in the current case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the assessment of income for the A.Y. 2012-13, where the assessee contested the assessment of income at ?14,03,626/- as opposed to the declared income of ?3,28,260/-. The primary issue was whether the higher assessed income was justified, leading to a challenge against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi.

2. The key contention revolved around the taxability of mesne profit as either revenue or capital receipt. The Assessing Officer treated the mesne profits as revenue receipts, a decision upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The appellant argued that the mesne profits received were capital receipts, not subject to taxation as revenue income, citing various legal precedents and evidence to support their claim.

3. The appellant raised the issue of not following a binding decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in a previous case. The appellant's counsel presented written submissions highlighting the relevant dates and legal arguments to establish that the mesne profits in question were capital receipts and not taxable as revenue. The Special Bench's decision in Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. was crucial in determining the tax treatment of mesne profits, emphasizing the distinction between revenue and capital receipts based on the nature of the receipts.

4. The appellant's arguments were supported by legal references and case laws, such as Pal Properties (P) Ltd. v. CIT, to demonstrate that the mesne profits should be treated as capital receipts. The appellant's reliance on the Special Bench's decision in Narang Overseas (P) Ltd. was pivotal in asserting that the mesne profits should not be taxed as revenue receipts but classified as capital receipts. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contentions and partially allowed the appeal, concluding that the mesne profits were capital receipts and not taxable as revenue income.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive review of the arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the applicability of the Special Bench's ruling and legal precedents to determine the tax treatment of mesne profits. The judgment highlighted the distinction between revenue and capital receipts, ultimately leading to the partial allowance of the appellant's appeal based on the tax treatment of mesne profits.