TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 26.12.2019 by the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before us by 395 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for the said delay. Assessee had made certain payments in respect of compensation for alternative accommodation given to various members of the Housing Society under the development agreement made with the society and the members. The was disallowed by the Ld. AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Similar disallowance was also made by Ld. AO for AY 2015-16. It was affirmed in the affidavit that Ld. CIT(A) had disposed the appeals for both the AYs. 2015-16 and 2017-18 on the same date 09.09.2021 and both the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the Appellant's case, provisions of section 194I-A are not at all attracted. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds it is submitted that since the recipient of compensation/rent were liable to include the same in their ROI, and pay tax thereon, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would have no application to the case of the Appellant. 4. It is also submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in not giving an opportunity of hearing for rebutting the altogether different view taken by the learned CIT (A). The issue in appeal was whether the provisions of section 194I were applicable to the case of the Appellant and since the learned CIT (A) unilaterally held that provisions of section 194I-A were applicable, he could have in the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. AO accordingly proceeded to disallow Rs. 41,81,760 u/s 40(a)(ia). 7. In the First Appeal, the Assessee had, inter-alia. contended that the provisions of section 194-I would not be applicable to its case and that the Assessee was not required to deduct any TDS from the payments made to various society members and hence the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) would not be applicable to its case. The Assessee had also relied on several decisions of ITAT including the decisions of Mumbai ITAT, which squarely supported the case of the Assessee. However, the First Appellate Authority took a view that provisions of section 194I-A would be applicable to the case of the Assessee and hence the impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was rightly made. Acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween the assessee and the society formed by the tenants, it is relevant to note that since the assessee was not able to provide alternative accommodation to the tenants, it was provided under the agreement that assessee would pay them compensation towards expenditure to be incurred by them on account of rent payable by them for alternative accommodation and in accordance with such terms assessee initially paid compensation of Rs. 5,000 per month to each tenant which was subsequently revised from time-to-time as the assessee could not construct the building within the stipulated time period for various reasons. From the aforesaid facts, it is very clear that the concerned persons to whom the assessee had made the payment are neither tenants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....compensation. The Tribunal in case of Jitendra Kumar Madan (supra) while considering the nature of payment received for alternative accommodation by the recipients held such payments at their hand as income from other sources instead of income from house property. That being the case, the payment made by the assessee also being in the nature of compensation for alternative accommodation cannot be treated as rent. Moreover, such compensation cannot be treated as rent for the simple reason that not only the assessee is not using any land and building but it may also be a fact that persons to whom such payments have been made may not be incurring any expenditure on account of rent. In any case of the matter, payments made by assessee under no ....