Snchalata Heramb Dhayagude Vs Jurisdictional AO (ITAT Mumbai)
Section 56(2)(x) Cannot Apply Because No Immovable Property Was Actually Received During the Year; No Tax Under Section 56(2)(x) Because Right to Future Flat Is Not Equal to Receipt of Property; Redevelopment Flat Not Taxable Under Section 56(2)(x) Because Possession Was Not Handed Over; Stamp Duty Value Addition Fails Because Receipt of Alternate Accommodation Had Not Occurred; Section 56(2)(x) Addition Deleted Because Possession Is Essential to Constitute Receipt of Immovable Property; Tax on Redevelopment Accommodation Held Premature Because Property Was Not in Habitable State.
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, concerned the taxability under section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the stamp duty value of a Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) allotted under a redevelopment agreement. The central dispute related to an addition of ₹1,20,40,750 sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), representing the assessee’s 50% share in the stamp duty value of the PAA.
The assessee, a senior citizen and an anesthesiologist by profession, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income of ₹16,10,510. During scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee, along with her husband, occupied premises in Savitri Niwas at Dadar, Mumbai, measuring 1059.40 sq. ft. carpet area, as co-tenants, and claimed tenancy rights in the said property. The property was subjected to redevelopment by a developer, pursuant to which the assessee and her husband became entitled to receive permanent alternate accommodation on ownership basis in lieu of surrender of their tenancy rights.
