2025 (7) TMI 239 - AT - Income Tax

Addition under the head Income from Other Sources by CPC - Disallowance of capital loss on the transfer of assessee s rights on the said flat - difference between amount received back from the developer (Net of Service Tax) and the payments made to the developer by the Assessee (Net of Service Tax) - Assessee submitted that the addition made while processing return of income had resulted in double taxation of same income once under the head Capital Gains as offered by the Assessee and then again under the head Income from Other Sources as done by the Central Processing Unit while processing the return of income. HELD THAT - On perusal of the Form 26AS placed on record we find that the developer had deducted tax at source on differential amount of INR.6.90 Crores. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the Revenue and the same clearly establish that the differential amount of INR.6.90 Crores received by the Assessee from the developer on surrender of rights in the flat was included by the Assessee while computing Capital Loss (which has been accepted while processing return of income). On perusal of Intimation Order issued u/s 143(1) we find that Capital Loss disclosed by the Assessee in the return of income has not been disturbed. Revenue has failed to appreciate the correct facts and has brought to tax the same differential amount of INR.6.90 Crores in the hands of the Assessee as Income from Other Sources while processing return of income u/s 143(1). On perusal of the impugned order we find that the Learned CIT(A) had appreciating the aforesaid facts correctly and had deleted the aforesaid addition of INR.6.90 Crores. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

• Whether the addition of Rs. 6,90,00,000/- made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under the head "Income from Other Sources" was justified or liable to be deleted.
• Whether the capital loss of Rs. 3,00,97,077/- arising from the surrender of the rights in the flat was rightly disallowed by the CPC or was correctly accepted.
• Whether the provisional booking of the flat amounted to a transfer of rights in the immovable property for the purposes of capital gains taxation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legitimacy of Addition of Rs. 6.9 Crores as Income from Other Sources

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 143(1) relating to the processing of return of income and Section 250 governing appeals to the CIT(A), were central. The principle against double taxation and correct classification of income under appropriate heads were also relevant.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the computation of capital gains and the payments and receipts related to the booking and surrender of the flat rights. It was found that the Assessee had made payments aggregating Rs. 30,92,70,000/- including service tax, and received Rs. 37,82,70,000/- including service tax on surrender of rights. After excluding service tax, the net payments and receipts were Rs. 30 Crores and Rs. 36.90 Crores respectively, resulting in a capital loss of Rs. 3,00,97,077/-.

Key evidence and findings: The Form 26AS showed tax deducted at source by the developer on the differential amount of Rs. 6.9 Crores. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had already included this differential amount in the computation of capital loss, which was accepted during return processing.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 6.9 Crores as income from other sources by the CPC amounted to double taxation since the same amount was already accounted for under capital gains. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to appreciate this fact and erred in taxing the same sum twice under different heads.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the addition was justified and that the booking did not confer any rights amounting to transfer. The Assessee's representative argued that the addition was a result of incorrect processing and double taxation. The Tribunal found the Assessee's submissions factually and legally sound.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 6.9 Crores addition, holding that the amount was rightly considered in capital gains computation and its separate taxation as income from other sources was erroneous.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Capital Loss of Rs. 3,00,97,077/-

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The determination of capital gains or losses on transfer of capital assets under the Income Tax Act, including the applicability of indexation benefits and the recognition of rights in immovable property as capital assets.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of the transaction-booking and subsequent surrender of rights in the flat. It was found that the Assessee treated the rights as a long-term capital asset and computed capital loss accordingly using indexed cost of acquisition.

Key evidence and findings: The computation showed indexed cost of acquisition at Rs. 40,83,67,077/- and consideration received (net of service tax) at Rs. 36,90,00,000/-, resulting in a capital loss of Rs. 3,00,97,077/-. The loss was disclosed in the return and accepted during processing.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the capital loss was rightly disallowed. Since the Assessee had correctly computed and disclosed the loss, and it was accepted during processing, the disallowance was unwarranted.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the capital loss should be disallowed as the booking did not amount to transfer of rights. The Assessee maintained that the rights constituted a capital asset and the transaction was a transfer. The Tribunal sided with the Assessee based on the factual matrix and legal principles.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the acceptance of the capital loss by the CIT(A), rejecting the Revenue's ground of disallowance.

Issue 3: Whether Provisional Booking Amounted to Transfer of Rights in Immovable Property

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The concept of transfer under the Income Tax Act, the nature of rights in immovable property, and the taxability of transactions involving booking and surrender of flats.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered the booking form, payment of consideration, and the agreement for surrender of rights. It was held that the Assessee had acquired rights in the flat by virtue of booking and payment, and the surrender amounted to transfer of those rights.

Key evidence and findings: Documentary evidence including booking form dated 03/12/2012 and agreement dated 29/06/2016 was relied upon. The Tribunal observed that the rights were treated as capital asset by the Assessee and accepted by the tax authorities.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of capital gains taxation to the facts, concluding that the provisional booking did create rights in immovable property, and their surrender constituted a transfer triggering capital gains or losses.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's contention that booking did not confer rights was rejected as inconsistent with the facts and accepted legal principles.

Conclusions: The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s view that provisional booking amounted to transfer of rights in immovable property for capital gains purposes.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's key legal determinations include the following:

"The differential amount of INR.6.90 Crores received by the Assessee from the developer on surrender of rights in the flat was included by the Assessee while computing Capital Loss (which has been accepted while processing return of income). The Revenue has failed to appreciate the correct facts, and has brought to tax the same differential amount of INR.6.90 Crores in the hands of the Assessee as 'Income from Other Sources' while processing return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act."

"The provisional booking of the flat created rights in immovable property which were treated as capital asset by the Assessee and the surrender of such rights amounted to transfer attracting capital gains provisions."

The Tribunal established the core principle that double taxation of the same income under different heads is impermissible and that the correct classification of income must be adhered to based on the nature of the transaction.

On all grounds raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 6.9 Crores, accepting the capital loss of Rs. 3,00,97,077/-, and recognizing the booking as transfer of rights in immovable property.