ITO-25(3)(3), Mumbai v. Radhakrishna G. Khatri HUF
[Citation -2019-LL-0917-54]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0917-54 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | ITO-25(3)(3), Mumbai |
| Respondent Name | Radhakrishna G. Khatri HUF |
| Court | ITAT-Mumbai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 17/09/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2010-11 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | transfer of tenancy rights • compensation received • computation of capital gain • extinguishment of any right • claim of exemption • disallowance of exemption • interest in property • low tax effect |
| Bot Summary: | PAN AAFHR0238C Assessee by None Department by Ms. R. Kavitha Date of Hearing 13.9.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.9.2019 ORDER Per Shamim Yahya:- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 11.12.2017 and pertains to A.Y. 2010-11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact that the assessee has transferred his tenancy rights to the builder within the meaning of section 2(47) of the income tax Act, 1961 and transfer of the same calls for the computation of capital gains. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact the assessee has not only selling and transferring or exchanging the asset but also extinguishing his rights and interest in their old property by entering into two agreement and thereby allowing the possession of the flat to the builder after receiving money, a contract of a nature referred to in the section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) has erred to consider that fact the assessee himself claimed the transaction before the AO as transfer and claimed exemption u/s. 54/54F 2 R ad h a kr i s h n a G. K h a tr i H U F during the assessment proceedings as he had not claimed it in the return of income filed and was beyond the period of three years and the claim of the assessee was not allowed. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred to consider the fact that the assessee received from the builder funds amounting to Rs. 23,65,972/- which forms part of the compensation received against transfer of tenancy rights and the same has to be considered for capital gains. At the outset, we note that the tax effect in this case is below the limit fixed by the CBDT for filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide latest CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. |