TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be quashed and set aside for failure of principles of Natural Justice in as much as the order is a non-speaking order, sans any independent reasoning is passed without giving due consideration to the submissions filed by the Appellant. ON JURISDICTION: 2. In the fact in circumstances of the case and in law, the implied assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act" for short] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre /National E-assessment Centre ["the NFAC" or "the AO" for short] is bad in law and void for want of jurisdiction. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned assessment order is bad in law and void since the same is passed in violation of section 144B of the Act. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned assessment order is bad in law and void also because the same is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Act. ON MERITS: 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), ["Ld. CIT (A)"] erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a tenanted property of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The original tenant was the father of the assessee, Shri Ramachandra Laxman Dhotre. He died on 03.02.1999. Assessee inherited the tenancy. This flat was Room No. 1, Plot No. 30, New Miranda Wadi, D.L. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai 400 028, admeasuring 441 Sq. Ft. After adding fungible area, the area came to about 600 Sq. Ft. As per the Development Agreement of 2007, by way Permanent Alternate Accommodation, assessee was to get a new flat on 1st Floor of 730 Sq. Ft. but, due commercial construction on 1^st floor, assessee was re-allotted a flat on the 23^rd floor. Being aggrieved on this re-allotment, assessee approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the suit no. 877 of 2016. Hon'ble Court ordered to allot flat on the 22^nd floor, plus stamp duty and registration charges were to be paid by the developer. In, addition, the developer was to give the assessee Rs. 14,50,000/- towards legal hassles compensation. An amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- was paid by the assessee for extra amenities. 3.1. Direction given by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid suit filed by the assessee vide order dated 26.10.2016 is extrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tenanted flat stood re-invested in the new flat. According to him, there is no taxable income generated on the said transaction as the entire consideration receivable on surrender of tenancy rights in the old tenanted property has been reinvested in the new property. He does not own any other residential property and thus, entitled for deduction u/s. 54F. 4.1. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee, did not find favor with him and confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer by applying section 56(2)(x) for the fair value of the additional benefit received without adequate consideration. He noted that additional 230 sq. ft. received by the assessee represents a distinct benefit which falls within the purview of section 56(2)(x). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the aforesaid factual position. He referred to the documentary evidences placed in the paper book filed by the assessee containing 128 pages to corroboratively demonstrate the factual matrix. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Anil Dattaram Pitale vs. ITO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des wadi for Manshati co-op Hsg Soc Lt D.L. Vaidya Rd, Dadar (W). Mumbai 400 028." 6.3. Thus, on the above factual matrix what the ld. Assessing Officer has sought to tax is the extra area granted by the developer of 230 sq. ft. (830-600) in the new property. He computed excess of stamp duty valuation of the property over the amount paid for allotment of the permanent alternate accommodation on the excess area of 230 sq. ft and gave credit for the amount paid by the assessee of Rs. 4,60,000/- for extra amenities and added the same in the hands of the assessee as income from other sources by applying the provisions of section 56(2)(x). 7. On the above factual matrix, we find that it is a case of extinguishment of rights in an old flat in lieu of which assessee has received a new flat by way of permanent alternate accommodation. There is a transfer of tenancy rights by way of surrender falling within the meaning of section 2(47). Income if any, on this transaction is chargeable as capital gain, u/s. 45 r.w.s. 48. It cannot be treated as an income falling under the head 'income from other sources' to apply section 56(2)(x). This is not a case of receipt of an immovable property ....