Ajay Parasmal Kothari v. ITO

ITA NO.2823/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2013-14)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Re development of building-Monthly rental compensation received from the builder for rent of alternative accommodation-Not utilised for paying alternative accommodation-Capital receipt-Not taxable as income from other sources-Delay of 1566 days in filing the appeal is condoned. [S. 56, 254(1)]
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1566 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee. The assessee received from the builder monthly rent as compensation for providing alternative accommodation as the building has gone for redevelopment. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as income from other sources. The addition was affirmed by the CIT(A) . On appeal it was contended that the amount received by the builder is in the nature of hardship compensation and it is a capital receipt hence taxable. The Revenue argued that the assesse has not utilised the rent received for his accommodation and he has lived with his parents . Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that the receipt of compensation for hardship is in the nature of capital receipt hence not taxable. Followed. Deliah Raj Mansukhani (Smt) v. ITO (ITA No. 3526/Mum/ 2017 dt. 29-1-2021. (ITA No. 2823/Mum/2022 dt. 3-4-2023 )(AY. 2013 -14.