IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. & S.S. GODARA, J.M.
Dy. CIT v. Shikha Roy
I.T.A. No. 1915/Kol/2019
25 November, 2020
Appellant by: S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate
Respondent by: Imokaba Jamir, CIT D.R.
J. Sudhakar Reddy, A.M.
This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-1, (hereinafter the 'ld. CIT(A)'), passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), dt. 1-5-2019, 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 28-6-2016, 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 under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 23-12-2015, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 11,93,42,172 inter alia rejecting the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 54EC of the Act of Rs. 50,00,000 and deduction under section 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 Income'. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee that this income is taxable under the head 'Capital Gains'. The assessing officer has given his reasons for coming to such a conclusion at Para 4 of his assessment order.