D.C.I.T.,Circle-3(1), Kolkata V. Smt. Shikha Roy, Kolkata

ITA 1915/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2364 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Capital receipt; Surrender of tenancy right; Capital Gains
• Section: 54; 56; 143(3); 54F; 2(14); 250; 143(2); 192; 54EC; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA VIRTUAL COURT HEARING (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA..........................APPELLANT VS. SMT. SHIKHA ROY..............................................................................................RESPONDENT 91/1, SOUTHERN AVENUE BALLYGUNGE KOLKATA 700 029 [PAN : ACZPR 9690 L] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI IMOKABA JAMIR, CIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 21 ST , 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 25 TH , 2020 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 01/05/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 9 (NINE) DAYS IN FILING OF THIS APPEAL. AFTER PERUSING THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME. HENCE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THIS APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ON 28/06/2016, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,21,37,340/-. IN THIS RETURN OF INCOME, SHE DECLARED INCOME FROM RENT FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF TENANCY RIGHTS, IN ADDITION TO INTEREST FROM FIXED DEPOSITS. HER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 23/12/2015, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.11,93,42,172/- INTERALIA REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54EC OF THE ACT OF RS.50,00,000/- AND DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT OF RS.5,00,00,000/-, ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, JUST AS COMPENSATION FOR VACATING THE TENANCY AND HENCE THE RECEIPT IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS I CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE THAT TH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REASONS FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION AT PARA 4 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.1. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RESPOND, THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT, CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND, THEREFORE, TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 54EC OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. D/R, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF RENT PAYMENT TO PROVE ITS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST AFTER 10 YEARS ON TH E CONSTRUCTION LOAN GIVEN SUPPLEMENTARY DEED SHOWS THAT THE INTEREST WOULD ACCRUE YEARS. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED EVIDENCE OF REPAYMENT OF HAS NOT PAID ANY PRICE FOR PURCHASING OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS ANYWAY NIL-. HE POINTED OUT THAT BETWEEN THE LANDLO RD AND THE TENANT WAS NOT A REGISTERED D DAUGHTER-IN- LAW OF THE LANDLORD WAS THE PURCHASER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LANDLORD HAD GIVEN A LOAN FUND TO THE DAUGHTER HENCE IT WAS ONLY COM PENSATION PAID FOR VACATING THE FLAT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS CLAIMED AS THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN GIVEN AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN BRINGING TO QUESTION AS BUS INESS INCOME. HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED, BASED ON WHICH THE LD. 2 RECEIPT IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS I NCOME . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EE THAT TH IS INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REASONS FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION AT PARA 4 OF HIS AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RESPOND, THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND, THEREFORE, TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION BOTH U/S 54F AS WELL AS U AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. D/R, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW OUR ATTENTION 4 OF HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY TO PROVE ITS THE CLAIM OF HAVING TENANCY RIGHTS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST AFTER 10 E CONSTRUCTION LOAN GIVEN BY HER TO THE LANDLORD OF RS.8,00,000/ SUPPLEMENTARY DEED SHOWS THAT THE INTEREST WOULD ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER 10 THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADMITTED ANY INTEREST INCOME THEREON OR OF REPAYMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN. HE ARGUED THAT THE HAS NOT PAID ANY PRICE FOR PURCHASING OF TENANCY RIGHTS AND HENCE THE COST OF ACQUISITION HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DT. 08/04/1994 RD AND THE TENANT WAS NOT A REGISTERED D OCUMENT, AND LAW OF THE LANDLORD WAS THE PURCHASER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LANDLORD HAD GIVEN A LOAN FUND TO THE DAUGHTER -IN- LAW, WHICH WAS IN TURN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND PENSATION PAID FOR VACATING THE FLAT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS CLAIMED AS THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN GIVEN AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN BRINGING TO TAX INESS INCOME. HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED, BASED ON WHICH THE LD. ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SMT. SHIKHA ROY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CAPITAL GAINS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN HIS REASONS FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION AT PARA 4 OF HIS AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RESPOND, THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS AND, THEREFORE, TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL DEDUCTION BOTH U/S 54F AS WELL AS U /S THE LD. D/R, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DREW OUR ATTENTION 4 OF HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY TENANCY RIGHTS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST AFTER 10 TO THE LANDLORD OF RS.8,00,000/ - BUT THE TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER 10 ANY INTEREST INCOME THEREON OR HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE COST OF ACQUISITION THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DT. 08/04/1994 OCUMENT, AND THAT THE LAW OF THE LANDLORD WAS THE PURCHASER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LANDLORD HAD LAW, WHICH WAS IN TURN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AND PENSATION PAID FOR VACATING THE FLAT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS CLAIMED AS THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN GIVEN AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. TAX , THE AMOUNT IN INESS INCOME. HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED, BASED ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A DECISION WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OFFICER TO GO THROUGH THE AD RELIEF. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORW ARD CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FLATS BY AGREEING TO PAY RS.8,00,000/ SUPPORTED BY ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT 4% WHICH ACCRUES ON THE EXPIRY OF 10 YEARS. HE POINTED OUT TO VARIOUS CLAUSES IN THESE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED TENANCY RIGHTS. HE RELIED ON SECTION 2(47) OF THE AC TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE BEING OLD DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED CERTAIN TIME TO AND THAT LOAN PAYMENT RECEIPTS CIT(A). HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUS BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT DATED 08/12/1994 SPECIFIES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE SAID HEREBY AGREES TO PAY TO THE LANDLORD RS.8,00,000/ SAME SHALL BE PAID AS UNDER: - (I) RS.8,00,000/- AGAINST POSSESSION OF THE FLAT. THE TENANCY IN RESPECT OF THE SHALL HAVE PAID THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ IMMEDIATELY ON THE LANDLORD OBTAINING OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPO RATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACT OR CONSENT ON THE PART OF THE LANDLORD. 3 CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A DECISION WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN FURTHER TIME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GO THROUGH THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THEN GIVE HIS VIEW. HE PRAYED FOR THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A ARD CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS BY AGREEING TO PAY RS.8,00,000/ - BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND THIS ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DT . 08/04/1994. THIS LOAN CARRIED AN INTEREST OF 4% WHICH ACCRUES ON THE EXPIRY OF 10 YEARS. HE POINTED OUT TO VARIOUS CLAUSES IN THESE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED TENANCY RIGHTS. OF THE AC T AND ON VARIOUS CASE- LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE BEING OLD DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED CERTAIN TIME TO PAYMENT RECEIPTS ETC. FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUS AL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT DATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE SAID TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT THE TENANT HEREBY AGREES TO PAY TO THE LANDLORD RS.8,00,000/ - BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND THE - AGAINST POSSESSION OF THE FLAT. THE TENANCY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT IN FAVOUR OF THE TENANT SHALL (PROVIDED THE TENANT SHALL HAVE PAID THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ - AS AFORESAID) BEGIN IMMEDIATELY ON THE LANDLORD OBTAINING OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT RATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACT OR CONSENT ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SMT. SHIKHA ROY CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A DECISION WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING GIVEN FURTHER TIME TO THE ASSESSING HIS VIEW. HE PRAYED FOR THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A OBTAINED TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND THIS FACT WAS . 08/04/1994. THIS LOAN CARRIED AN INTEREST OF 4% WHICH ACCRUES ON THE EXPIRY OF 10 YEARS. HE POINTED OUT TO VARIOUS CLAUSES IN THESE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED TENANCY RIGHTS. LAW FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE BEING OLD DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED CERTAIN TIME TO COLLATE THE SAME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND AL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT DATED TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT THE TENANT BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND THE SAID FLAT IN FAVOUR OF THE TENANT SHALL (PROVIDED THE TENANT AS AFORESAID) BEGIN IMMEDIATELY ON THE LANDLORD OBTAINING OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT RATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACT OR CONSENT T HE PAYMENT OF RS.8,00,000/ BANKING CHANNELS ON 08/12/1994 AGAINST ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND TENANCY IN RESPECT OF THIS FLAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH DATE. IMPUGNED CONSTRUCTION LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ OF THE BUILDING WHICH WAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/- IS DIRECTLY LINKED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS. A LTHOUGH THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT DATED 08/12/1994 THAT THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN SHALL BE REPAID BY THE LANDLORD TO THE TENANT WITH INTEREST THEREON OF 4% P.A. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ THEREON WAS NEVER REPAID BY THE LANDLORD RS.8,00,000/- WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS COST OF ACQUISITION IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. HEN CE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY PRICE FOR PURCHASING THE TENANCY RIGHTS, IS NOT TRUE. 8.1. ON THESE FACTS, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET OR NOT. 9. THE HONB LE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF (1979) 117 ITR 581 (CAL.)., HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 21. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF MR, BANERJEE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TRANSFERABLE PROPERTY MUST FAIL BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT. IT MUST ALSO BE HELD THAT THE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED IN 22. SECTION 2(47) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, SAYS THAT 'TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET OR THE E XTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN OR THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW'. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF MR. BANERJEE THAT NO CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED MUST BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE'S MONTHLY TENANCY RIGHT OR THE LEASEHOLD RI GHT IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND IT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSOCIATED BATTERIES WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LANDLORDS AND ON SUCH TRANSFER HIS RIGHTS IN IT STOOD EXTINGUISHED. SECTION 45(1) OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY SILENT AS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE CONSIDERATION MONEY FOR TRANSFERRING A CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IT, INTER ALIA, PROVIDES THAT ANY PROFITS OR GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET SH 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THIS CAPITAL ASSET TO THE ASSOCIATED BATTERIES FROM WHOM IT HAS RECEIVED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AND, THEREFORE, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THIS RECEIPT IS ASSESSABLE TO TA ASSESSEE. 4 HE PAYMENT OF RS.8,00,000/ - AS CONSTRUCTION LOAN WAS MADE THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS ON 08/12/1994 AGAINST ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND IN RESPECT OF THIS FLAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH DATE. IMPUGNED CONSTRUCTION LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ - WAS GIVEN TO THE LANDLORD FOR CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS GIVEN ON MONTHLY RENT, TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE SAID CONSTRUCTION IS DIRECTLY LINKED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS. LTHOUGH THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT DATED 08/12/1994 THAT THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN SHALL BE REPAID BY THE LANDLORD TO THE TENANT WITH INTEREST THEREON OF AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ BY THE LANDLORD TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAID PAYMENT OF WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS COST OF ACQUISITION IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. CE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY PRICE FOR PURCHASING THE TENANCY RIGHTS, IS NOT TRUE. ON THESE FACTS, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS TRANSFER OF LE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A. GASPER VS. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 581 (CAL.)., HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - 21. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF MR, BANERJEE , NAMELY, THAT THE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TRANSFERABLE PROPERTY MUST FAIL BOTH IN IT MUST ALSO BE HELD THAT THE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A CAPITAL ASSET AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, SAYS THAT 'TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET OR THE XTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN OR THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW'. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF MR. BANERJEE THAT NO CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED MUST BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE'S MONTHLY TENANCY RIGHT OR THE GHT IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND IT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSOCIATED BATTERIES WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LANDLORDS AND ON SUCH TRANSFER HIS RIGHTS IN IT OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY SILENT AS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE CONSIDERATION MONEY FOR TRANSFERRING A CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IT, INTER ALIA, PROVIDES THAT ANY PROFITS OR GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET SH ALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME- TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THIS CAPITAL ASSET TO THE ASSOCIATED BATTERIES FROM WHOM IT HAS RECEIVED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AND, THEREFORE, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THIS RECEIPT IS ASSESSABLE TO TA X AS THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SMT. SHIKHA ROY AS CONSTRUCTION LOAN WAS MADE THROUGH NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS ON 08/12/1994 AGAINST ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND THIS IN RESPECT OF THIS FLAT WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUCH DATE. THE WAS GIVEN TO THE LANDLORD FOR CONSTRUCTION HE SAID CONSTRUCTION IS DIRECTLY LINKED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE TENANCY RIGHTS. LTHOUGH THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE ARTICLE OF AGREEMENT DATED 08/12/1994 THAT THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN SHALL BE REPAID BY THE LANDLORD TO THE TENANT WITH INTEREST THEREON OF AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/ - OR ANY INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE SAID PAYMENT OF WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS COST OF ACQUISITION IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. CE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY PRICE ON THESE FACTS, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS IS TRANSFER OF A. GASPER VS. CIT REPORTED IN , NAMELY, THAT THE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TRANSFERABLE PROPERTY MUST FAIL BOTH IN IT MUST ALSO BE HELD THAT THE MONTHLY TENANCY OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, SAYS THAT 'TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET OR THE XTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN OR THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW'. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF MR. BANERJEE THAT NO CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED MUST BE REJECTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE'S MONTHLY TENANCY RIGHT OR THE GHT IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND IT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSOCIATED BATTERIES WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LANDLORDS AND ON SUCH TRANSFER HIS RIGHTS IN IT OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY SILENT AS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE CONSIDERATION MONEY FOR TRANSFERRING A CAPITAL ASSET IS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IT, INTER ALIA, PROVIDES THAT ANY PROFITS OR GAINS ARISING FROM TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THIS CAPITAL ASSET TO THE ASSOCIATED BATTERIES FROM WHOM IT HAS RECEIVED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AND, THEREFORE, IT MUST X AS THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE 28. FURTHER, SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE AFORESAID TRANSFER THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTHLY TENANCY UNDER THE LANDLORDS OR HIS LEASEHOLD INTEREST WAS EXTINGUISHED AND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT MATTER AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE LANDLORDS FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS AFORESAID RIGHTS IN THE AFORESAID CAPITAL ASSET, FOR, AS ALREADY STATED, OF THE ACT DO ES NOT SAY FROM WHOM THE CONSIDERATION MONEY IS TO BE RECEIVED FOR TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND, FURTHER, 'TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES THEREIN'. 9.1. THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 21/08/1991 REPORTED IN [1991] 192 ITR 382 (SC). 10. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LTD. [2005] 142 TAXMAN 713 (SC) SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME YEAR 1987-88 - RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE SURRENDERED ITS TENANCY RIGHT TO LESSOR PREMATURELY IN CONSIDERATION OF WHICH IT RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 35 LAKHS OFFICER HELD THAT AMOUN T IN QUESTION WAS TAXABLE AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' UNDER SECTION 56 READ WITH SECTION 10(3) ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS ON AMOUNT RECEIVED AFTER DEDUCTING CERTAIN AMOUNT AS COST OF ACQUISITIO CONCLUSION THAT COST INCURRED BY ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED AND, THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAINS COULD NOT BE COMPUTED AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 48, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, CAP TO TAX - HIGH COURT AFFIRMED TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DEPARTMENT BEFORE HIGH COURT WAS THAT COST OF ACQUISITION OF TENANCY WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED, HIGH COURT WAS COR YES - WHETHER IN VIEW OF FINDING THAT SECTION 45 COULD NOT BE APPLIED, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO DEPARTMENT TO IMPOSE TAX ON CAPITAL RECEIPT UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION 12. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY UPHO HAD ACQUIRED A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF TENANCY RIGHTS AND THE TRANSFER OF THIS CAPITAL ASSET RESULTS IN CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS WILL BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ON THE GROUND THAT NO PURCHASE PRICE WAS PAID FOR THE TENANC WHICH WAS REFUNDABLE. IN THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DT. 08/12/1994 AT PAGE 4.4., IT IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE SAID TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT THE TENANT HEREBY AGREES TO PAY TO THE LANDLORD RS.8,00,000/ LOAN AND THE SAME SHALL BE PAID AS UNDER: 5 28. FURTHER, SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE AFORESAID TRANSFER THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTHLY TENANCY UNDER THE LANDLORDS OR HIS LEASEHOLD INTEREST WAS EXTINGUISHED AND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE LANDLORDS FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS AFORESAID RIGHTS IN THE AFORESAID CAPITAL ASSET, FOR, AS ALREADY STATED, SECTION 45(1) ES NOT SAY FROM WHOM THE CONSIDERATION MONEY IS TO BE RECEIVED FOR TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND, FURTHER, SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT SAYS THAT THE WORD 'TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES 'THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 21/08/1991 REPORTED IN [1991] 192 ITR 382 (SC). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D.P. SANDU BROS. CHEMBUR [2005] 142 TAXMAN 713 (SC) , HELD AS FOLLOWS:- OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - CHARGEABLE AS - ASSESSMENT RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE SURRENDERED ITS TENANCY RIGHT TO LESSOR PREMATURELY IN CONSIDERATION OF WHICH IT RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 35 LAKHS - ASSESSING T IN QUESTION WAS TAXABLE AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' UNDER SECTION 56 READ WITH SECTION 10(3) - ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS ON AMOUNT RECEIVED AFTER DEDUCTING CERTAIN AMOUNT AS COST OF ACQUISITIO N - ON CROSS APPEALS, TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT COST INCURRED BY ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED AND, THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAINS COULD NOT BE COMPUTED AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 48, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, CAP ITAL GAINS EARNED BY ASSESSEE, IF ANY, WAS NOT EXIGIBLE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED TRIBUNAL'S ORDER - WHETHER SINCE STAND TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT BEFORE HIGH COURT WAS THAT COST OF ACQUISITION OF TENANCY WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED, HIGH COURT WAS COR RECT IN AFFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL WHETHER IN VIEW OF FINDING THAT SECTION 45 COULD NOT BE APPLIED, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO DEPARTMENT TO IMPOSE TAX ON CAPITAL RECEIPT UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION - HELD, YES APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THESE JUDGMENTS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY UPHO LD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF TENANCY RIGHTS AND THE TRANSFER OF THIS CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS WILL BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ON THE GROUND THAT NO PURCHASE PRICE WAS PAID FOR THE TENANC Y. A LOAN OF RS.8,00,000/- WAS GIVEN AS CONSTRUCTION LOAN IN THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DT. 08/12/1994 AT PAGE 4.4., IT IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE SAID TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT THE HEREBY AGREES TO PAY TO THE LANDLORD RS.8,00,000/ - BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION LOAN AND THE SAME SHALL BE PAID AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SMT. SHIKHA ROY 28. FURTHER, SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE AFORESAID TRANSFER THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTHLY TENANCY UNDER THE LANDLORDS OR HIS LEASEHOLD INTEREST WAS IN THE LEAST THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE LANDLORDS FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS SECTION 45(1) ES NOT SAY FROM WHOM THE CONSIDERATION MONEY IS TO BE RECEIVED FOR OF THE ACT SAYS THAT THE WORD 'THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED CIT VS. D.P. SANDU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) ASSESSMENT RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE SURRENDERED ITS TENANCY RIGHT TO LESSOR ASSESSING T IN QUESTION WAS TAXABLE AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' UNDER ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS ON AMOUNT RECEIVED AFTER DEDUCTING CERTAIN ON CROSS APPEALS, TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT COST INCURRED BY ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WAS INCAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED AND, THEREFORE, CAPITAL GAINS COULD NOT BE COMPUTED AS ENVISAGED IN ITAL GAINS EARNED BY ASSESSEE, IF ANY, WAS NOT EXIGIBLE WHETHER SINCE STAND TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT BEFORE HIGH COURT WAS THAT COST OF ACQUISITION OF TENANCY WAS INCAPABLE OF RECT IN AFFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL - HELD, WHETHER IN VIEW OF FINDING THAT SECTION 45 COULD NOT BE APPLIED, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HELD, YES LAID DOWN IN THESE JUDGMENTS TO THE FACTS OF THE LD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF TENANCY RIGHTS AND THE TRANSFER OF THIS CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS WILL BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ON THE GROUND THAT NO PURCHASE WAS GIVEN AS CONSTRUCTION LOAN IN THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT DT. 08/12/1994 AT PAGE 4.4., IT IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: - FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE SAID TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FLAT THE BY WAY OF CONSTRUCTION (I) RS.8,00,000/- AGAINST POSSESSION OF THE FLAT. THIS LOAN IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND IT IS, IN A WAY, CONSIDERATION FOR OBTAINING THE RIGHTS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF TENANCY RIGHTS, THE NATURE OF RIGHTS WOULD REMAIN TENANCY RIGHT AND THIS IS A CAPITAL ASSET. SECTION 55(2)(A) OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT IN CASE NO PRICE IS PAID ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 55(2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE COST SHALL BE TAKEN AS NIL. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEGALLY INCORRECT IN HIS VIEW. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 14. GROUND N O. 4 & 5 ARE ON THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AND 54F OF THE ACT. AS THE MAIN QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY OF TENANCY RIGHTS, UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN AND AS ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED FOR OF THE ACT, ARE MET, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [ S. S. GODARA ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25.11.2020 {SC SPS} 6 AGAINST POSSESSION OF THE FLAT. THIS LOAN IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND IT IS, IN A WAY, CONSIDERATION FOR OBTAINING THE RIGHTS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF TENANCY RIGHTS, THE NATURE OF RIGHTS WOULD REMAIN TENANCY RIGHT AND THIS IS A CAPITAL ASSET. SECTION 55(2)(A) OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT IN CASE NO PRICE IS PAID ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 55(2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE COST HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEGALLY INCORRECT IN HIS VIEW. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. O. 4 & 5 ARE ON THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AND 54F OF THE ACT. AS THE MAIN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY OFFERED THE INCOME FROM UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALL THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED FOR GRANT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AND U/S 54 OF THE ACT, ARE MET, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. KOLKATA, THE 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20 20 [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SMT. SHIKHA ROY THIS LOAN IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE TENANCY RIGHTS AND IT IS, IN A WAY, CONSIDERATION FOR OBTAINING THE RIGHTS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF TENANCY RIGHTS, THE NATURE OF RIGHTS WOULD REMAIN TENANCY RIGHT AND THIS IS A CAPITAL ASSET. SECTION 55(2)(A) OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT IN CASE NO PRICE IS PAID FOR ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 55(2) OF THE ACT, THEN THE COST HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEGALLY INCORRECT IN HIS VIEW. THUS, O. 4 & 5 ARE ON THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AND 54F OF THE ACT. AS THE MAIN OFFERED THE INCOME FROM THE SURRENDER HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AND U/S 54 OF THE ACT, ARE MET, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 20 . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. SHIKHA ROY 91/1, SOUTHERN AVENUE BALLYGUNGE KOLKATA 700 029 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(1), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 1915/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 SMT. SHIKHA ROY TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES