IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND
SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA no. 3399/Mum./2010
(Assessment Year: 2004-05)
Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)-3
C-10, R.No.605, Pratyakshakar
Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051
PAN – AAAAT0325L
. Appellant
V/s
M/s. Navyug CHS Ltd.
Plot no.51, Jai Hind Recreation Club
Juhu, Mumbai 400 049
PAN – AAAAT0325L
Respondent
Revenue by: Mr. V.V. Shastri
Assessee by: Mrs. Aarti Vissanji
Date of Hearing – 09.02.2012
Date of Order – 22.02.2012
O R D E R
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M.
This Appeal preferred by the Revenue, is directed against the impugned order dated 12th February 2010, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXII, Mumbai, for assessment year 2004-05, on the following grounds:-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the premium on transfer fees of Rs. 10,60,000 received from members relying on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sind Coop. Hsg. Socy. (2009) 26 DTR (Bom.) 149.
2(i) In doing so, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring certain paras of the above cited judgment wherein it is categorically stated that this case law would pertain to the assessment years prior to notification dated 9.8.2001, of Govt. of Maharashtra for Co. Hsg. Societies. In the instant case, the assessment year being previous to this notification dated 27.11.1989, would be applicable which specified a maximum of upto 1000/- as transfer premium payable as per the then bye law of society.
(ii) In the instant case, the assessment year in question pertains to period prior to the notification dated 27.11.1989 of Govt. of Maharashtra for C.H.S. by ignoring this point, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciated that principle of mutuality will not apply in the case of premium on “transfer fee as the society has charged more amount than the permissible limits as per the bye law of co.op. Hsg. Scty or Govt. notification & therefore the society is bound to repay the same & if it retains such excess amount, then it will be in the nature of profit making & such sum will be eligible to tax.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting a sum of Rs. 3,33,662, being TDR premium received from the members relying on the decision of Mumbai High Court in the case of Sind CHS (2009) 26 DTR 149.”
2. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the undisputed facts are that the assessee is a plot society and not a flat society. Thus, notification dated
3. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.2.2012
Sd/- Sd/-
R.S. PADVEKAR J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED:
Copy to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Respondent;
(3) The CIT(A), Mumbai, concerned;
(4) The CIT,
(5) The DR, “H” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai.
TRUE COPY
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
BY ORDER
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Date Initial
1. Draft dictated on 20.2.2012 Sr.PS
2. Draft placed before author 20.2.2012 Sr.PS