SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7545/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4876 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHCHIDANAND DUBE
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUJ KUSHANDWALAAR
• Keywords: Business income; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7545/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ) M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TECHSTAR INFOTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) 156, BHANDUP VILLAGE ROAD, NEXT TO WMI CRANES ROAD, BHANDUP, WEST MUMBAI-400068 . PAN: AABCT7637C VS. ITO-10(3)(3 ) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA & ANUJ KUSHANDWALA-(AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBE (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 22.05.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-22 MUMBAI, DATED 15 TH OF OCTOBER 2013 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) O N 12 TH NOVEMBER 2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER APPEAL ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISPUTE D AMOUNTS CREDITED INTO THE ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF ECS HOLDING THAT THIS I S NOTHING BUT RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND IT HAS BEEN RI GHTLY ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY EVEN WHEN THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED THAT TENANTS OCCU PY LEGITIMISES ILLEGALLY . ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSM ENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE 26 AS DETAILS NOTED THAT DURING THE RELEV ANT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS RECEIVED RENT INCOME FROM MAHANAGAR TEL EPHONE NIGAM LTD. (MTNL) OF RS. 35,98,356/-. HOWEVER, FROM THE C OMPUTATION OF INCOME AND RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAID RENTAL R ECEIPT FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE A SSESSEE AND ASKED TO RECONCILE THE DETAILS OF 26 AS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 17 TH OCTOBER 2012 AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LET O UT THE GROUND FLOOR OF BUILDING SITUATED AT 15 BHANDUP VILLAGE ROAD, CEAT TYRE ROAD, BHANDUP (W) MUMBAI TO MTNL WITH EFFECT FROM 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2002 AND RENT WAS FIXED AT THE RATE OF RS. 1,79,918/- PER MONTH. THE RENT WAS TO BE INCREASED AFTER THREE YEARS SUBJECT TO MAXIMUM 15% INCREASE. THE RENT AGREEMENT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SERVICE AGREEMENT OF E VEN DATE AND IT WAS TO REMAIN IN FORCE SO LONG AS MAIN AGREEMENT SU RVIVED. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT WAS NOT RENEWED AND MTNL HAS CONTINUED TO OCCUPY THE PREMISES EVEN AFTE R THE EXPIRY OF AGREEMENT. THE POSSESSION OF MTNL IS ILLEGAL IN THE RENTED PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EVICTION SUIT AGAINST MTNL F OR RECOVERY OF TENANTED PREMISES AND COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD O F ILLEGAL POSSESSION. MTNL CONTINUED TO REMIT AMOUNTS THROUGH ECS TOWARD CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR CONTINUED OCCUPATION OF THE PREMISES. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 3 MTNL REMITTED RS. 35,98,356/- THROUGH ECS, WHICH WA S NOT OFFERED TO TAX. AS THERE WAS NO PREVAILING AGREEMENT BETWEEN M TNL AND ASSESSEE FOR RENTING THE SAID PREMISES. THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM MTNL HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED AS MTNL DEPOSIT UNDER OTHER CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFF ICER AND TREATED THE RECEIPT OF RS. 35,98,356/- FROM MTNL AS RENTAL INCO ME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SIMILAR CONTENTION THAT MTNL FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERM OF LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT, THE TENANCY HA D CEASED TO EXIST AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY RENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR SUCH RECEIPT W AS NOT CONSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME BUT SHOWN AS DEPOSIT UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITY AND AS SUCH OFFER WAS ACCEPTED IN ORDER PASSED UNDER SE CTION 143(3). THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT TREATING RECEIPTS AS DEPOSITS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE WOULD NOT MA KE ANY DIFFERENCE AND THE LAW DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE INCOME ARISING OUT O F LEGAL AND ILLEGAL RECEIPTS. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (D R) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 4 SUBMITS THAT AS PER THE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2002, MTNL WAS REQUIRED TO SERVE THREE MONTH PRIOR NOTICE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF AGREEMENT, AND IN ABSENCE OF SUCH NOTICE, THE AGREEMENT COME TO AN END BY EFFLUX OF EXPIRY OF FIVE YEARS. WHATEV ER AMOUNT WERE TRANSMITTED THROUGH ECS TO THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FOR ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF THE PREMISES, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, BE C ONSTRUED AS RENT AS HELD BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RENT IS A PAYMENT MADE BY THE TENANT FOR THE OCCUPATION OF THE PREMISES LET OUT BY LANDLORD, ABO UT WHICH THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE. DESPITE SERVICES OF REPEATED NOTICE, MT NL FAILED TO VACATE AND HANDOVER THE PREMISES, DID NOT YIELD ANY RESULT , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED SUIT FOR EVICTION OF MTNL BEFORE SMA LL CAUSES COURT AT BOMBAY FOR SEEKING RELIEF FOR VACANT AND PEACEFUL P OSSESSION OF SUIT PROPERTY/RENTED PREMISES, CLAIMING MESNE PROFIT @ 1 00 PER SQ. FT. PER MONTH OR ANY SUCH RATE WHICH THE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,10,000/- + ADDITIONAL COMPENS ATION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND COST OF THE SUIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF RELATIONSHIP OF LICENSOR AND LICENSEE BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE AND MTNL, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM MTNL CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS RENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO MAK E A CLAIM AND TO RECEIVE MESNE PROFIT. THE SMALL CAUSE COURT AT MUMBAI IN PROCEEDING TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IN SUIT NO.169 /2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH OF JULY 2016 HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO INITIATE SEPARATE PROCEEDI NG UNDER ORDER 20 RULE ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 5 12 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (CPC) FOR RECOVERY OF MESNE PROFIT. THE COPY OF ORDER OF THE SMALL CAUSE COURT IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE SMALL CAUSE COURT HAS YET TO DECIDE THE QUANTUM OF MESNE PROFIT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM THE MTNL. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE M ESNE PROFIT, IF ANY, AWARDED BY SMALL CAUSE COURT IN THE SEPARATE PROCEE DING. IT WAS CANVASSED THAT IF MESNE PROFIT IS DETERMINED AT THE AMOUNT LOWER THAN THE AMOUNT ALREADY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LICENS EE IS LIABLE TO REFUND THE EXCESS AMOUNT. SIMILARLY, IF THE MESNE PROFIT D ETERMINED IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ALREADY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LI CENSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO PAY DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT. THUS, THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED BY ASSESSEE IS ONLY A DEPOSIT /LIABILITY TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE FUT URE RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF MESNE PROFIT IF ANY. 4. THE LEARNED AR FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT WH ETHER SUCH MESNE PROFIT IS TAXABLE OR NOT WOULD, IN ANY CASE, IS AN ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS AWARDED BY THE LEARNED SMAL L CAUSE COURT, AND ACCEPTED BY THE MTNL. UPON HAPPENING OF SUCH EVENT, THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION WOULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST MESNE PROFIT AWARDED. THEREFORE, W HETHER MESNE PROFIT IS INCOME OR NOT IS AN ACADEMIC ISSUE SO FAR AS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED. ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 6 5. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT MESNE PROFIT, A S HELD BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUM, IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND NOT REVENU E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRINGING TO TAX TH E DISPUTED AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, AND CONFIRMING HIS OR DER BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS NO EXCEPTION. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE DESERVES TO BE S ET-ASIDE. THE LD AR MADE RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF NARANG OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD VERSUS ACIT [11 1 ITD 1(SB), WHEREIN QUESTION WAS FRAMED WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN 232 ITR 2 IT MUST BE HELD THAT MESS PROFIT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IS REVENUE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX . THE SPECIAL BENCH PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 48. THE ABOVE ANALYSIS CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THERE IS C LEAVAGE OF OPINION BETWEEN HIGH COURTS. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT MESNE PROFITS ARE RECOMPENSE FOR DEPRIVATION OF INC OME WHICH THE OWNER WOULD HAVE ENJOYED BUT FOR THE INTERFERENCE O F THE PERSONS IN WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME IS REVENUE RECEIPT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. ON THE OTHER HAN D THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CALCUTTA, KERALA AND PATN A HAVE HELD THAT MESNE PROFIT IS IN THE NATURE OF DAMAGES FOR DEPRIV ATION FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE CAPITAL RE CEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THERE IS NO JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE. IN OUR VIEW, SUCH CONFLICT CAN BE RESOLVED O NLY BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SOME APPROPRIATE CASE. IN THE ABSE NCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAND OR OF THE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE LEGAL POSITION IS THAT WHERE THERE ARE T WO VIEWS THEN THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE SUBJECT SHOULD BE PREFERRED. REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE APEX COURT : CIT V. VEGETABLE ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 7 PRODUCT LTD. [1973] 88 ITR 192 , CIT V. NAGA HILLS TEA CO. LTD. [1973] 89 ITR 236 , CIT V. MADHO PRASAD JATIA [1976] 105 ITR 179 , CIT V. J.K. HOSIERY FACTORY [1986] 159 ITR 85 , SMT. SHASHI GUPTA V. LIC OF INDIA [1995] 84 COMP. CAS. 436, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT MESNE PROFIT RECEIVED FOR DE PRIVATION OF USE AND OCCUPATION OF PROPERTY WOULD BE CAPITAL RECEIPT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUSHIL KUMAR & CO. ( SUPRA ), HOLDING TO THE EXTENT THAT MESNE PROFIT IS TAXABLE AS REVENUE RECEIPT IS OVERRULED. 49. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF LEAS E, NIHPL WAS OCCUPYING AND USING THE PROPERTY UNAUTHORISEDLY AND THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE PROPE RTY AND THEREFORE, THE MESNE PROFIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE AWARDED BY THE APEX COURT AT THE RATE OF RS. 10 LAK HS P.M. WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVATION OF USE AND OCCUP ATION OF THE PROFITS AND THEREFORE, THE SUM SO RECEIVED WAS CAPITAL IN N ATURE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. 6. THE LEARNED AR FOR ASSESSEE FAIRLY BROUGHT TO OUR THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, VIDE ITA NO . 1791 OF 2008 AS THE REVENUE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH THE REASON S FOR NON-REMOVAL OF OFFICE OBJECTION IN ITS APPEAL. THE REVENUE AGAIN R AISED THE SIMILAR ISSUE ABOUT THE TAXABILITY OF MESNE PROFIT IN CIT VS GOOD WILL THEATRE (P) LTD (386 ITR 294 BOM), IN WHICH PROCEEDING THE EARLIER ORDER IN CASE OF NARANG OVERSEAS PVT LTD (SUPRA) WAS RELIED BY MUMB AI TERMINAL. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT NOT ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL OF R EVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISMISSAL OF ITS APPEAL IN C ASE OF NARANG OVERSEAS ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 8 PVT LTD (SUPRA) ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE REVENUE TO GET THE APPEAL IS RESTORED WHICH, ACCORDING TO T HE JUDGEMENT, WAS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH. HOWEVER, ON FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, THIS HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY THE IR JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 29 NOVEMBER 2017 SET-ASIDE THE JUDGEMEN T APPEALED AGAINST AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT VIDE CIT VERSUS GOODWI LL THEATRE (P) LTD (292 CTR 457 SC). SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME ACROSS ANY FURTHER ORDER IN CASE OF GOODWILL THEATRE (P) LTD, IT APPEA RS THAT MATTER IS PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT. THE LEARNED AR HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE REASONED ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH IN NARANG OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD, WHEREIN EVEN CLEAVAGE OF OPIN ION EXPRESSED BY DIFFERENT FORUMS WERE CONSIDERED, PREVAILS AS ON DA TE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED AR OF ASSESSEE WOULD SUBMIT THAT MESNE PROF IT CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER THE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT AT THE COST OF LITIGATION, THE ISSUE OF TAXABI LITY OR OTHERWISE OF MESNE PROFIT DOES NOT ARISE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION AND ALL THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY TO DEMONSTRA TE THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MESNE PROFIT WHICH MIGHT BE AWARDED BY THE HONBLE SMALL CAUSE COURT IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 9 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED THE DR FOR THE REVENU E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITS THAT A SSESSEE IS RECEIVING PERIODIC PAYMENT FROM LICENSEE FOR USE AND OCCUPAT ION CHARGES OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE RECEIPT THEREOF IS NOTHING BUT THE RENTAL INCOME AND LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY. THE LEARNED DR FOR REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE FAC TS OF THE CASE IN NARANG OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD (SUPRA) WERE ENTIRELY D IFFERENT. IN SAID CASE THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT OF VARIOUS SHO PS PAYMENT OF AS WELL AS COMMISSION BY WAY OF CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF SALES PROCEEDS AND THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME. ON DETERMINATION OF LEASE/ LICENSE THE OCCUPANT HAS NOT MADE PERIODICAL PAYMEN T RATHER LUMP SUM COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF MESNE PROFIT WAS AWARDED . 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE LAND ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUT HORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED B Y LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE TENANT/ LICENSEE DESPITE EFFLUX OF LEASE PERIOD ARE OCCUPYING THE TENANTED PORTION ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE TENANT IS REMITTING THE USER CHARGES BY WAY OF ECS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE THROUGH ECS IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF CONTR ACTUAL PAYMENT OF RENT AND NOTHING BUT PART OF MESNE PROFIT. THE ASS ESSEE HAD TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS PART PAYMENT OF DEPOSITS OF MESNE PR OFIT. THE PARTIES HAVE LOCKED THEIR HORN ON THE TAXABILITY OF RECEIPT, WHE THER IT SHOULD BE TAXED AS ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 10 REVENUE RECEIPT CHARGEABLE TO TAX OR IT SHOULD BE T REATED AS MESNE PROFIT BEING CAPITAL RECEIPT AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. TH E LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF S PECIAL BENCH IN NARANG OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE SPECIAL BE NCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPRIVED O F THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE MESNE PROFIT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE AWARDED BY THE AP EX COURT AT THE RATE OF RS. 10 LAKHS P.M. WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVATION OF USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE PROFITS AND THEREFORE, THE SU M SO RECEIVED WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALREADY OBTAINED A JUDGEMENT AND DECREE OF VA CANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF TENANTED PREMISES VIDES ORDER DATED 2 9 TH JULY 2016 PASSED BY LEARNED JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSE COURT BOMBAY. WHILE PASSING THE JUDGEMENT IN DEGREE THE LEARNED JUDGE OF SMALL CAUS E COURT BOMBAY DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO INITIATE SEPARATE PROCEEDI NG UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 12 OF CPC FOR INQUIRY FOR RECOVERY OF MESNE PROFIT. THE SAID PROCEEDING FOR DETERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF MESNE PROFIT UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 12 OF CPC INITIATED BY ASSESSEE IS STILL PENDING. THE MAI N THRUST OF SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF MESNE PROFIT DOES NOT ARISE DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION AND ALL THE SUBMISSION OF MADE ONLY TO THE DEMONSTRATE THE FACTS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST MESNE PROFIT WHICH ITA NO. 7445/MUM/2013-M/S SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 11 MIGHT BE AWARDED BY LEARNED SMALL CAUSE COURT IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DECISION OF LEARNED SMALL CAUSE C OURT ON THE QUANTUM OF MESNE PROFIT IS AWAITED, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFT ER TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF SMALL CAUSE COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF IN NARANG OVERSEAS PRIVATE LTD (SUPRA) AND PASS THE ORDER IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO RECORD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT FAIR A ND PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE PASSING ORDER ON THE ISSUE. IN THE RESULT TH E GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/05/2019. SD/- SD/- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 22.05.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI