Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I v. Shri.rejendra R.chaturvedi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1448 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I...Appellant. v. Shri.Rejendra R.Chaturvedi...Respondent. Mr. P .C. Chhotaray with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.Mr. Sridharan, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2013 PC: In this appeal by the revenue following questions have been raised for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount received on surrender of tenancy rights is assessable as “capital gain” instead of “income from other sources”? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was eligible for benefits u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2)The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the revenue by following its decision dated 4/6/2010 in the matter of M/s. R. R. Chaturvedi (AOP) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 4735, 4736, 4791, 4792, 4793, 4794 and 4795/Mum/2008 for Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The revenue had challenged the above order of the Tribunal dated 4/6/2010 in the case of M/s. R. R. Chaturvedi and others being Income Tax Appeal No.1197 of 2011, before this Court. This Court did not entertain the appeal of the revenue challenging the finding of the Tribunal that; (a) there been surrender of tenancy and (b) consideration has been paid for surrender of tenancy to the tenants is not exorbitant. 3)This appeal filed by the revenue relates to consideration received by the tenants in respect of surrender of tenancy. Once, it is accepted that the amounts paid by M/s. R.R. Chaturvedi (AOP) to the respondent assessee herein, was for the transfer/surrender of tenancy it follows that the amount received by the respondent assessee herein, in his hands would be amounts received as transfer of tenancy assessable as “capital gain” and not as “income from other sources”. In the above circumstances we see no reason to entertain question (a). 4)So far as question (b) is concerned the same is consequential to question (a).Therefore, if the amount received by the respondent assess is capital gains then relief under Section 54F of the said Act is available. Therefore, we see no reason to entertain question (b). 5)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)