RAJESH RAMESH RANGANEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

3 ITA No. 2157/Mum/2024 Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar

“6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee had inherited a house property which is part of MIG Co-operative Housing Society Group-IV limited (Society) in Bandra along with her two sisters. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the society consisting of 96 members, which went under the Re-development vide agreement dated 26th April 2010 entered into by the Society with Kalpataru properties Private Limited (the developer). As per annexure-C of the said Re-development Agreement (page 1 to 60of paper book), in which the assessee's name along with her sisters appears at serial no.79 having old flat 29/255 in the said society. The assessee's case was reopened under section for the reason that the assessee being a member of the society has received a sum of Rs.53,50,500 pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 28.03.2018. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 14.11.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.39,085. Subsequently, notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in response submitted that the amount was received as hardship allowance from the builder and the same is a capital receipt not taxable. The assessee further submitted that out of the said sum she has received only Rs.10,00,000 from the builder and the balance amount was never received due to some family dispute. The assessee also submitted that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has been consistently holding the issue in favour of the assessee that the amount received towards hardship allowance is a capital receipt not subject to tax. The AO treated the said receipt as income from other sources by holding that – “7. From the above, it is clear, that the receipt by assessee of Rs 53,50,000/- (or right to receive) by whatever name is nothing but monetary compensation by the builder which is given to the assessee to alleviate her difficulties or hard ship in giving up the possession of her flat for the purpose of redevelopment. This is simply an assistance given by the builder to the assessee to get over her temporary difficulties in vacating her residence for redevelopment purpose. For the assessee, such a receipt is in the nature of income from other sources, as it has got nothing to do with capital value enhancement of the redeveloped property. In view of the above, it appears that such receipts by the assessee are taxable as income from other sources. The assessee has not furnished the

4 ITA No. 2157/Mum/2024 Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar

dates on which she has received such payments from the builder She has just stated that there was dispute. The agreement between the society and the builder M/s Knlpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. was signed on 26.4.10. The onus is on the assessee to furnish complete details of receipts with documentary evidences, which the assessee has not discharged Merely making a claim without documentary evidences cannot be accepted Her address as per return filed in response to notice u/s 148 also mentions as 8-83. Kalpataru Sparkle, MIG colony, Bandra(East) Mumbai. In view of these, and also to protect the interest of revenue, the entire sum of Rs 53,50,000/- therefore is brought to tax as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for concealment of income” 7. From above observations of the AO, it is clear that the AO is not disputing the fact the amount is received by the assessee as a compensation for the difficulties and hardships in giving up the possession of the property i.e. the amount is a hardship allowance. However the AO has not accepted that it is a capital receipt not subject to tax. On perusal of the agreement entered into between the Society and the Builder we notice that Clause 5(B)(II) (page 13 of paper book) clearly states that the amount paid is compensatory for the hardship faced by the member in vacating the flat and hardship / nuisance suffered during the construction. 8. We notice that the coordinate bench while considering the issue of whether the amount received as hardship allowance by a member of the Society from the builder as part of the re-development agreement has been consistently holding that the such a receipt is capital in nature and does not fall within the ambit of income under section 2(24) of the Act. In this regard the relevant observations of the coordinate bench in the case of Lawrence Rebello vs ITO (ITA No.132/Ind./2020, dated 29/09/2021) is extracted below – “11. On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we are of the considered view that in the reasons recorded the AO himself noted that the benefits received by the assessee from a bigger size of flat and impugned amount has been given in pursuance to agreement between the society and

5 ITA No. 2157/Mum/2024 Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar

the developer and it was hardship compensation, ITA No.132/Ind/2020 rehabilitation compensation kind of benefit. The orders passed by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani (supra), Jitendra 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 following same reasoning, I find that consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not relevant in determining the nature of receipt in the hands of the assessee. In view of these discussion, in my considered view, assessee could not be said to be of revenue nature, and, accordingly, the same is outside the ambit of income under section 2(24) of the Act. The impugned receipt ends up reducing the cost of acquisition of the asset, i.e. flat, and, therefore, the same will be taken into account as such, as and when occasion arises for computing capital gains in respect of the said asset. Subject to these observations, the appeal of assessee is allowed." Respectfully following the above observations of the ITAT Mumbai Bench as well as the orders cited supra, we are compelled to hold that the benefit received by the assessee in the form of bigger size of flat and amount received as hardship allowance from the developer is a capital receipt, which cannot be treated as revenue receipt for taxing as income.” 9. The facts of the assessee's case as elaborated above being identical i.e. the issue of taxability of hardship allowance, we respectful follow the above decision to hold that the addition of Rs.17,83,500 be deleted.”

6 ITA No. 2157/Mum/2024 Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar

Order pronounced in the open court on 23-07-2024. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai