TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018-19 which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, dated 09.02.2023 and penalty order u/s. 270A of the Act, dated 31.08.2023, passed by Assessing Officer, (in short 'ld. AO') Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are extracted as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the "CIT(A)", has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,75,440/- levied under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the alleged un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceived by the assessee is a capital receipt though not taxable but offered for tax to buy piece of mind. As per information, the assessee was a member of Middle-Income Group (MIG) Housing Society Bandra East Group IV Ltd., had received an amount of Rs 19,53,678/- as hardship allowance from M/s Keystone Realtors P. Ltd. as per redevelopment agreement. As per penalty order, the Ao had concluded that if the reassessment proceedings would not have been initiated the assessee would not have declared the correct income, thus, had under reported her income, accordingly, liable to be penalized under the provisions of section 270A of the Act. Penalty of Rs. 175440/- imposed on the assessee in terms of Clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 270A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O in ITA No 3526/MUM/2017 vide order dated 29.01.2021, held that compensation received by the assessee towards displacement in terms of Development Agreement is not a revenue receipt and constitute capital receipt as the property has gone into re-development. Similar finding was given in the case of Shri devlakshmi Dedhia V. ACIT in ITA 5350/MUM/2012, that the amounts received as compensation for hardship, rehabilitation and shifting are not liable to tax. On this aspect Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla Vs. Afshan Sharfali Ashok Kumar (2024) 166 Taxman.com 425 (Bombay) / 467 ITR 230 (Bombay)(15-04-2024) has approved the decision of tribunal in the case of Smt. Delilah Raj Mansukhani (supra) and held that H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Vs. Afshan Sharfali Ashok Kumar (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the receipts in the form of Hardship Allowance / Rehabilitation Allowance / Displacement Allowance, paid by the developer / landlord to the tenant who suffers hardship due to dispossession is not to be considered as revenue receipt and is not liable to be taxed. In the facts of present case as there is no dispute regarding the nature of receipt by the assessee that the same was Hardship Allowance for here dispossession in the wake of redevelopment of the building wherein, she was a resident, thus, such receipt is not revenue in nature, so as to liable to be taxed. It is also a fact that the assessee had furnished Form 68, but with some procedural errors. ....