PCIT v. MIG Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Group II Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 284 / 467 ITR 524 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Income-Redevelopment agreement-Amount paid to members of society-Members offered the amount for taxation-Not taxable in the assessee society- Capital gains- Not taxable in the year under consideration [S.2(24),4, 5 , 45 , 56 260A]

The assessee-society owned certain residential flats. The plot of land on which the said flats were constructed was held by the assessee as a lessee under a long-term lease.The assessee along with its members decided to redevelop the flats by demolishing the old flats and constructing new flats. Accordingly it entered into redevelopment agreement with one developer, whereby it granted rights and entitlements to the developer for the aforesaid land. The members of the society agreed to transfer their old flats to the developer. The developer, in turn, agreed to pay a certain amount to each member of society apart from a certain amount to the corpus fund of assessee. The payment was in addition to the flats and parking spaces to be constructed and handed over to the members.The Assessing Officer taxed the amount received by the members from the developer in the hands of the assessee.The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.The Tribunal, on appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue, held that the facts in the instant case were almost similar to the facts in the case of CIT v. Raj Ratan Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 2292 of 2011, dated 27-2-2013 (Bombay High Court)] and relying on the said judgment concluded that as the members of the society had offered the amount received by them from the developer for taxation, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in taxing the aforesaid amount to some extent in the hands of the assessee, as the same was the income of the members. It accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the revenue is not even questioning the finding of the Tribunal that the facts in the case at hand were almost similar to the facts in the case of Raj Ratan Palace CHS (supra). Further against the above order of the High Court, the revenue had preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court, which came to be dismissed.   Followed, CIT v. Raj Ratan Palace Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, ITA No. 2292 of 2011 dt. 27-2.2013 (Bom)(HC) (AY. 2011-12)