Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (10) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Act which is prayed to be quashed and held as unwarranted, illegal and bad-in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer determining total income at Rs. 34,01,150/- as against declared income of Rs. 6,28,040/- which is bad in law and excessive. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 27,73,108/- on account of Hardship Compensation received by treating it revenue receipt instead of capital receipt. The appellant prays that the addition be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend all or any of the foreg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in confirming the action of AO in reopening the case and making reassessment u/s.147 of the Act, which deserves to be quashed being unwarranted, illegal and bad-in-law. Ld. AR also submitted that the ld. First Appellate Authority (FAA) has also erred in confirming the action of the AO in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s.147 of the Act beyond six years without any legal and justified basis. Therefore, the entire reopening proceedings, notice and all consequent proceedings and orders deserve to be quashed being unsustainable and bad in law. 6. Replying to the above, Shri P.K.Singh, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative(DR) drew our attention towards page No.6 of assessee's paper book and vehemently .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lieu of old flat of 645 sq.ft. in addition to said hardship allowance. It has not been controverted that the said agreement was undertaken between the said two parties and assessee was also one of the beneficiary/flat owner in the said society. The ld. AR of the assessee has not pointed out any fact that the assessee has declared the said transaction before the department, therefore, the allegation levelled by the AO that the assessee has not declared fully and truly the income chargeable to tax for A.Y. 2010-2011 relevant to A.Y.2011-2012. We may also point out that at the time of initiation of proceedings, the assessee has to draw a prima facie inference and satisfaction that the income has escaped assessment but the AO has not debarred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that where the assessee was a flat owner in housing society and he received certain sum from the developer as corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount would be in nature of capital receipt simplicitor not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi) of the Act. Ld. AR also submitted that the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani Vs. ITO, ITA No.3526/Mum/2017, order dated 29.01.2021 by following the order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Devshi Lakhamshi Dedhia vs. ACIT in ITA No.5350/Mum/2012 concluded that the amount received by the assessee as hardship compensation, rehabilitation compensation and for shifting are not liable to tax and, therefore, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Kumar Soneja (supra) and Kushal K Bangia(supra) including the order passed by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Shri Devshi Lakhamshi Dedhia (supra), it is amply clear that where the assessee being a flat owner in a housing society receives certain sum from developer as corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para 3.2 of the order of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar Soneja (supra), which reads as under :- "3.2 Nothing contrary was brought to my knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts being similar, so .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates