Ajay Parasmal Kothari v. ITO

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Redevelopment monthly rent compensation: capital receipt even where recipient does not actually incur alternate accommodation rent; condonation of long delay.
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

Assessee Represented by : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented by : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned

assessee with a delay of 1566 days and assessee also filed an affidavit in

this regard and prayed for condonation of delay. In the affidavit assessee

“6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation

Appellant / assessee submissions

submitted that assessee was having a flat in Satsang Bharti CHS Ltd.,

In response, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the amount received

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

“6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation

“5. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we find that compensation received by the assessee

15. We have considered the rivals submissions and perused the materials on records. We note that the assessee received compensation of Rs. 19,50,873/- from the developer when the building in which the assessee owned flat went for re-development as per the agreement between the developers and flat owners dated 28.03.2008. The said compensation was paid towards hardship Rs, 13,45,278/-; rehabilitation Rs, 5,90,625/- and for shifting Rs. 15,000/-.We also note that the assessee paid Rs. 18,63,000/- to Joys Developers for acquiring additional area of 138 Sq Ft. It was also noted that the assessee shifted to his own house when the building went for re-development. Now the question before is whether the compensation upon re- development of property towards hardship, rehabilitation and shifting received by the assessee is taxable if the potential TDR/FSI is available to the land owner or society which owns the (and depending upon the terms of the de-development agreement without transferring the land . In the present case the assessee who was flat owner in the building was member of the society, As per the agreement each member of the society including the assessee was to be given a flat…

Operative decision and relief

6.6 In case the delay was not condoned, it would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order. The power given to the Tribunal is not to legalise an injustice on technical ground but to do substantial justice by removing the injustice. The Parliament conferred power on this Tribunal with the intention that this Tribunal would deliver justice rather than legalise injustice on technicalities. Therefore, when this Tribunal was empowered and capable of removing injustice, in our opinion, the delay of 2819 days has to be condoned and the appeal of the assessee has to be admitted and disposed of on merit.

16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above.

6. Respectfully following the co-ordinate Bench decision, we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition made of Rs.2,60,000/-. Accordingly, the ground No.6 is allowed.”

14. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Redevelopment monthly rent compensation: capital receipt even where recipient does not actually incur alternate accommodation rent; condonation of long delay. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with redevelopment monthly rent compensation: capital receipt even where recipient does not actually incur alternate accommodation rent; condonation of long delay. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Parth Developers vs. Pr. CIT - ITAT Indore
• PCIT v. Axis Bank Ltd - Court / Tribunal to be verified
• OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR - Court / Tribunal to be verified

Different outcome / possible distinction

• UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT - Quashed / set aside
• SPL Labs India Pvt ltd Vs ITO,Circle 6 Bangalore - Quashed / set aside

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Later-history status: verification on hold pending source confirmation