TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has filed its return of income on 30.10.2001 claiming deduction u/s 54 in respect of the receipt against surrender of tenancy rights. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and later on vide notice u/s 148 dated 15.04.2004, the assessment was reopended as in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 54 in respect of the receipt for surrender of tenancy rights. In the assessment order the Assessing Officer denied deduction u/s 54 and brought to tax the amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- under the head "income from other sources". In first round of litigation CIT(A) deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assesse vide order dated 14.01.2009. On further appeal by the revenue before this Tribunal the matter was restored to the record of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after examination of the additional evidences and other material as the assessee may produce during the course of proceedings. While passing the fresh order the Assessing Officer again taxed the said amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- under the head "income from other sources". 3. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance/addition made by Assessing Officer by impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecific direction was given to the Assessing Officer to consider the information furnished by the MHADA but the authorities below have completely ignored the relevant evidence. He has further submitted that the assessee has also produced rent receipts to establish the tenancy of the assessee and his brother (HUF) in respect of these tenanted premises. The Ld. Authorized Representative has referred the rent receipts placed at page 6 of the paper book. Thus the Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the assessee has produced all the relevant records to prove that the assessee was having the tenancy right in the premises in question. The documents include rent receipts, agreement dated 10th April 1995, agreement dated 25th March 2010, list of tenants provided by MHADA and list of BEST showing the assessee as tenant in respect of the premises in question. The Ld. Authorized Representative has referred and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court dated 22.02.2012 in the of CIT Vs. R.R. Chaturvedi & Others in Income Tax appeal No. 1196 of 2011 as well as the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Rejendra R. Chaturvedi in Income Tax Appeal No. 1448 of 2011 and subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 36, 00,000/- out of total of Rs. 60,00,000/- shared between the assessee and his brother (HUF) has not been disputed by the authorities below. The dispute is only on the point whether this amount received by the assessee is against the surrender of tenancy and the surrender of right in the property to be developed by the developer and to be considered as capital gain or not. Authorities below held that this amount cannot be treated as capital gain as the entire transaction was just a colourable device to evade payment of tax. The Assessing Officer has refused to accept the rent receipt, the list of tenants provided by MHADA as well as BEST. The Assessing Officer has attempted to point out some deficiencies in the receipt as well as the agreement dated 10.4.1995 in which the name of the assessee was written in typing Bhogilal M. Mehta and then HUF has been inserted with pen. We find that the said typing mistake has been corrected at the time of signing the agreement and parties have endorsed by signing the said correction in the agreement. Therefore, merely because a correction is made in the agreement would not render entire agreement as non genuine when at all other places the na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is brother (HUF) were given the option to decline to accept the possession of the alternative accommodation and to receive an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of permanent alternative accommodation inclusive of Rs. 6,15,000/- construction cost paid by the assessee and his brother (HUF). On 25th March 2000, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the assessee and his brother HUF agreed to receive Rs. 60,00,000/- against the surrender of tenancy rights and the rights in the alternative accommodation. The amount of Rs. 6,15,000/- was comprising of payment of Rs. 3,15,000/- and Rs. 2,65,000/- by assessee and brother (HUF) according to the areas under tenancy. There is no dispute that the rent was being paid in respect of premises in question and the builder wanted to reconstruct the property under the redevelopment agreement, therefore, the assessee along with his brother (HUF) was offered alternative accommodation by the builder. The tenancy right has been recognized as the capital asset u/s 55(2) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, there is no doubt that the consideration to be received by the assessee against the surrender of tenancy rights is capital in nature ....