JITENDRA KUMAR SONEJA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year:2007-08) Jitendra Kumar Soneja 327, Wadala Udyog Bhawan, Naigaon Cross Road, Wadala, Mumbai 400 031 Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(3), Mumbai-400 020 Respondent PAN: AKSPS9539A

Date of Corrigendum : 30-03-2017

CORRIGENDUM In the above appeal, there exist inadvertent mistake in Sub Para 4 of Para 3.1, which is corrected and now which may be read as under:

3.1 Regarding addition of Rs.22 lacs as income from other sources, ld. Authorized Representative drew my attention to page no.17. The stand of assessee has been that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.22 lacs received as corpus fund was received towards hardship caused to assessee on redevelopment and as such receipt was in the nature of capital receipt and as such not taxable. Ld. Authorized Representative drew my attention to the Jitendra Kumar Soneja; AY:07-08 decision of ITAT Mumbai ‘A’ Bench in in case of Kushal K Bangia vs. ITO, wherein Tribunal has held as under:

“3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered factual matrix of the case as also the applicable legal position.

Jitendra Kumar Soneja; AY:07-08 receipt and revenue receipt. It is not even the case of the Assessing Officer that the compensation received by the assessee is in the revenue field, and rightly so because the residential flat owned by the assessee in society building is certainly a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and compensation is referable to the same. As held by Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court Court, in the case of Dr. George Thomas K vs CIT(156 ITR 412), “the burden is on the revenue to establish that the receipt is of revenue nature” though “once the receipt is found to be of revenue character, whether it comes under exemption or not, it is for the assessee to establish”. The only defence put up by learned Departmental Representative is that cash compensation received by the assessee is nothing but his share in profits earned by the developer which are essentially revenue items in nature. This argument however proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of payer also ends up determining it’s nature in the hands of the recipient. As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Behari Lal Singha (82 ITR 460), “it is now well settled that, in order to find out whether it is a capital receipt or revenue receipt, one has to see what it is in the hands of the receiver and not what it is in the hands of the payer”. The consideration for which the amount has been paid by the developer are, therefore, not really relevant in determining the nature of receipt in the hands of the assessee. In view of these discussion, in our considered view, the receipt of Jitendra Kumar Soneja; AY:07-08

Rs.22,00,000/- by the assessee cannot be said to be of revenue nature, and, accordingly, the same is outside the ambit of income under section 2(24) of the Act. However, in our considered opinion and as learned counsel for the assessee fairly agrees, 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, grievance of the assessee is upheld.

This mistake is rectified accordingly.