A person acquiring the right to use an immovable property on a month-to-month basis without acquiring the ownership right is known as the tenant and the person continuing to be the owner of the property is known as the landlord. The monthly compensation paid for the use of the property is known as the rent. Various States in India have tenancy laws, whereby tenants are protected from eviction by the landlord from premises in which they are tenants. The rights so acquired by the person to use the property are known as tenancy rights. These rights may be acquired for a consideration known as salami or premium, though many States prohibit payment of such consideration.
On the other hand, many States permit the transfer of tenancy rights by the tenant for a consideration with the consent of the landlord, who may consent to the transfer on receipt of a payment or even without it. These tenancy rights are recognised by the tax laws as capital assets of the tenant and accordingly the gains if any on their transfer are taxed under the head capital gains. Section 55 provides that the cost of acquisition of the tenancy is to be taken as Nil unless paid for, in which case the cost would be the one that is paid for acquiring the tenancy. Tenancy rights when acquired for a fixed period under a written instrument are known as leasehold rights. Acquisition of a license to use the property, although similar to lease or tenancy, is not the same.
An interesting issue has arisen as to the manner of taxation of the receipt by the landlord for consenting to such transfer of tenancy – whether it is capital in nature and therefore not taxable or taxable as capital gains, or whether it is revenue in nature and taxable as income. There have been conflicting decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal on this issue. The taxation of such receipt under the provisions of section 56(2)(x) is another aspect that requires consideration.
THE VINOD V. CHHAPIA CASE
The issue came up before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vinod V. Chhapia vs. ITO (2013) 31 taxmann.com 415.
In this case, the assessee was a HUF which owned an immovable property. Part of the property was let out to a tenant since 1962 and part of the property was occupied by the members of the HUF. The tenant expired in 1986 and the tenancy rights were inherited by her daughter.
A tripartite agreement was entered into between the daughter, new tenants and the landlord for surrender of tenancy by the daughter and grant of tenancy by the landlord in favour of the new tenants. The daughter surrendered her tenancy rights in favour of the landlord to facilitate renting of the property to the new tenants. The incoming tenants paid an amount of Rs. 14.74 lakhs to the daughter and an amount of Rs. 7.26 lakhs to the assessee-landlord simultaneously. The assessee accepted the surrender of tenancy rights and possession of the property and received the amount from the new tenants as consideration for granting the new tenants monthly tenancy of the flat.
The assessee invested the amount of Rs. 7.26 lakhs in bonds issued by NABARD, treated the amount received from the new tenants as capital gains and claimed exemption u/s 54EC.
During assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the amount was received towards surrender of a right, which was part of the bundle of rights owned by the assessee in respect of the property. The assessee claimed that the receipt of the consideration of Rs. 7.26 lakhs was for the extinguishment of the rights and therefore was capital gains eligible for exemption u/s 54EC. Various decisions were cited by the assessee in support of the proposition that the amount received on surrender of tenancy rights was a capital receipt, which was taxable under the head ‘capital gains’.
But the A.O. brought out the distinction between transfer of tenancy rights vis-à-vis surrender of tenancy rights. According to him, the receipt by the landlord was for consenting to a transfer of the right of residence by the existing tenant to the new tenants. He sought to support this view by the fact of payment of consideration by the new tenants to both the original tenant and the landlord. The A.O. distinguished the judgments cited before him, since all of those related to surrender of tenancy rights.
According to the A.O., the outgoing tenant (the daughter) surrendered (transferred) the tenancy rights in favour of the new tenants and not to the assessee-landlord. He held that the amount of Rs. 7.26 lakhs was received by him from the new tenants for consenting to the transfer of tenancy to the new tenants, and not for surrender of tenancy, and was therefore not a capital receipt. The A.O. therefore taxed the amount of Rs. 7.26 lakhs as income of the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’, rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 54EC.
Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that consent of the landlord was mandatory for the new tenants to enjoy the right of residence. Thus, by consenting, the assessee gave up (transferred) some of the rights out of the bundle of rights attached to the said property, a capital asset. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. 273 ITR 1 and on the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. (P) Limited vs. CIT 249 ITR 265, for the proposition that the amount received on surrender of tenancy rights is a capital receipt taxable under the head ‘capital gains’, and not ‘income from other sources’.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, confirming the order of the A.O. and held that the assessee continued to hold the ownership rights even after the new tenants entered the house and that the outgoing tenant transferred the tenancy rights to the new tenants. The assessee merely gave its consent for such transfer, for which it received the sum of Rs. 7.26 lakhs which could not be termed as a receipt for surrender of tenancy rights. Had it amounted to a surrender of tenancy rights in favour of the landlord, the consideration would have been paid by the landlord to the outgoing tenant. Therefore, it was a case of encashment of the power of consent for transfer of the tenancy rights to the new tenants. The Commissioner (Appeals) next observed that if the new tenants further transferred the property to some other tenant, the assessee would be entitled to receive a similar amount and the ownership rights of the property would continue to vest with the assessee.
Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the assessee it was submitted that the rights attached to an immovable property constituted a bundle of rights. Exploitation of these rights gives rise to capital gains. Without the surrender of tenancy rights by the original tenant to the assessee, the assessee could not have consented to the transfer of residence in favour of the new tenant. Therefore the consideration received by the assessee was for surrender of tenancy rights, which was a capital receipt, taxable as capital gains.
Attention was drawn by the assessee to the tripartite agreement between the assessee, the original tenant and the new tenants, which mentioned that the original tenant was the sole owner of the tenancy rights and she surrendered the flat to the landlord including the tenancy rights.
On behalf of the Revenue it was argued that normally in the case of surrender of tenancy rights the tenant would receive the consideration from the landlord for surrender of the same. In the case before the Tribunal, the landlord did not pay the consideration to the original tenant, but it was the new tenants who paid the consideration to the original tenant. Further, the assessee continued to hold the right of ownership of the property and tenancy rights were transferred from the old tenant to the new tenants. It was therefore submitted that the amount was rightly taxed as ‘income from other sources.’
The Tribunal noted that all the decisions cited before it, whether by the assessee or by the Revenue, were in the context of undisputed surrender of tenancy rights and were therefore distinguishable on facts. Analysing the facts of the case, the Tribunal was of the view that the consideration paid by the new tenants was for consent of the landlord for the transfer of tenancy rights between the new and old tenants and the amount of Rs. 7.26 lakhs was the consideration for consent. According to the Tribunal, generally in matters of tenancy rights disputes it is the tenant who gets the financial benefit, which flows from the pockets of the landlord in lieu of surrender of the tenancy rights by the tenant, and the landlord does not receive any amount. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the settled law relating to taxation of a receipt on surrender of tenancy rights would not apply in the case before it.
The Tribunal also examined whether the assessee actually received all the rights over the property, including the tenancy rights. It noted the clause in the agreement which indicated that the existing tenant surrendered the tenancy rights along with the property to the assessee. It questioned the need for the existing tenant to be a signatory to the agreement giving the property on monthly rent to the new tenants and the need for a tripartite agreement. According to the Tribunal, letting of the property to the new tenant was a matter of agreement between the landlord and the new tenant.
Noting that the monthly rental and rental advance were nominal, the Tribunal was of the view that the sum of Rs. 7.26 lakhs paid to the landlord by the new tenant was consideration for the consent. As per the Tribunal, the receipt was for the consent for transfer by the old tenant to the new tenants, for a consideration of Rs. 14.48 lakhs and there was a need for the consent of the landlord. The Tribunal accordingly held that there was no transfer of any capital asset by the landlord to the new tenants and that the sum of Rs. 7.26 lakhs was neither a capital receipt nor a rental receipt.
The Tribunal also noted that there was no time gap between the vacation of the property by the old tenant and grant of rental rights to the new tenants. There was continuity of renting of the property and there was no evidence to infer that the house was in the vacant possession of the assessee even after the alleged end of the tenancy of the old tenant. Therefore, the assessee never got the property in vacant condition. Hence the Tribunal held that the amount received was consideration for consent, it did not involve any transfer of capital rights attached to the property, and it constituted a windfall gain to the assessee, which was taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’.
NEW PIECE GOODS BAZAR CO. LTD. CASE
The issue again came up before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jt. CIT vs. New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd., ITA No. 6983/Mum/2012 dated 25th May, 2016.
In this case, the assessee was the owner of several shops in the cloth market which were given on rent to different tenants. Every year, some tenants transferred the possession of shops to new tenants, with the consent of the assessee, who was the owner of the shops. In consideration of giving its consent to the transfer of possession of the shops from old tenants to the new tenants, the assessee was receiving a certain premium from the old tenants.
Earlier, the receipt of premium by the assessee was shown as income under the head ‘capital gains’. During the relevant year also, certain old tenants transferred their possessory rights of the rental shops to the new tenants with the consent of the assessee. In consideration of giving consent for such transfer of possessory rights, the assessee received a premium of Rs. 1,15,50,000 from the old tenants. The assessee treated such amount as income from ‘capital gains’ and claimed exemption from taxation of a part thereof u/s 54EC.
The A.O. held that the assessee was the owner of the shops, the old tenants had transferred the tenancy rights in favour of the new tenants along with rights of possession and the assessee remained the owner of the shops as before. Consequently, there was no transfer of the capital assets, being shops, as even after the transfer of tenancy rights the assessee continued to remain the owner of the shops. According to the A.O., while the transfer of tenancy rights indisputably resulted in capital gains, such capital gains would be taxable in the hands of the outgoing tenants and could not be taxed as the capital gains of the assessee. The A.O. therefore held that the amount received by the assessee as premium was taxable in the hands of the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ and not as ‘capital gains’, and that the assessee was therefore not entitled to exemption u/s 54EC.
In an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee submitted that in earlier and subsequent years also, a similar amount was offered to tax as capital gains and was accepted by the Income-tax Department. It was further argued that tenancy rights was undoubtedly a capital asset under the law and therefore any gains arising from the transfer of such rights had to be assessed under the head ‘capital gains’.
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that a right was a bundle of benefits embedded in some asset or independent thereof. Capital asset meant property of any kind held by an assessee. Therefore, a right, whether or not attached to any asset, was also a property. The old tenant could transfer the possessory rights of the shops only with the consent of the landlord. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), such right of consent was a property in the hands of the assessee. Since that right or property was connected to the capital asset, i.e., shops, therefore such a right of consent was also a capital asset in the hands of the assessee which was more or less similar to a tenancy right, which was also a capital asset.
The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore held that on giving consent to change in the possession of rented premises from an old tenant to a new tenant, there was a transfer of capital asset. He, therefore, held that such receipt was liable to tax as capital gains and the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54EC.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal expressed its agreement with the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee acquired a bundle of rights (ownership) with respect to the shops. These rights included, inter alia, the right of grant of tenancy. The term ‘capital asset’ was defined in the widest possible manner in section 2(14) and had been curtailed only to the extent of exclusions given in the said section, including stock-in-trade and personal effects. The asset under consideration clearly did not fall within the above exclusions. The bundle of rights acquired by the assessee was undoubtedly valuable in terms of money.
On the above reasoning, the Tribunal held that the tenancy rights formed part of a capital asset in the hands of the assessee and therefore any gains arising therefrom would be assessable under the head ‘capital gains’, eligible for deduction u/s 54EC.
In Sujaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) vs. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 125 (Mum) a similar view was taken that the amount received by the landlord was a capital receipt, subject to tax as capital gains. However, in that case the appeal was against an order of revision passed u/s 263 and the landlord had received the amount from the new tenants for allotment of tenancy rights under tenancy agreements.
A similar view has also been taken by the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dr. Vasant J. Rath Trust, ITA No. 844/Mum/2014 dated 29th February, 2016 wherein the old tenants had surrendered their tenancy rights to the landlord without receiving any consideration and the landlord directly entered into tenancy agreements with the six new tenants on receipt of consideration for grant of tenancy rights.
OBSERVATIONS
Any property, especially immovable property, comprises of a bundle of rights where each such right is a capital asset capable of being transferred by the owner for an independent consideration to different persons. Ownership of the land and / or building is the classic case of owning such a bundle of rights. The right to grant tenancy flows from such a bundle. The Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Krishnamurthy, 176 ITR 417, in the context of the ownership of a mine, held that the mining rights were a part of the mine and were capable of being held as an independent asset and therefore of being transferred independent of the ownership of the mine. It held that the grant of the lease to mine the asset or the mining rights resulted in the transfer of a capital asset, negating the case of the assessee that there was no transfer of capital asset on grant of the mining rights where the ownership of the mine continued with the assessee. The court also rejected the contention that there was no cost of acquisition of such rights or the cost could not be attributed to such rights.
Receipt of a salami or premium by a landlord from a tenant for grant of tenancy rights in an immovable property owned by him is a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt [Durga Das Khanna vs. CIT 72 ITR 796 followed by the Bombay and the Calcutta High Courts in CIT vs. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta 110 ITR 71 and CIT vs. Anderson Wright & Co. 200 ITR 596, respectively]. The Courts held that unless such a receipt is proved to be in the nature of rent or advance rent, it could not be taxed under the Act as revenue income.
The Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs. Panbari Tea Co. Ltd. 57 ITR 422 held that a premium received on parting with the lessor’s interest was a capital receipt and the rent receipt was revenue in nature:
‘When the interest of the lessor is parted with for a price, the price paid is premium or salami. But the periodical payments made for the continuous enjoyment of the benefits under the lease are in the nature of rent. The former is a capital income and the latter a revenue receipt. There may be circumstances where the parties may camouflage the real nature of the transaction by using clever phraseology. In some cases, the so-called premium is in fact advance rent and in others rent is deferred price. It is not the form but the substance of the transaction that matters. The nomenclature used may not be decisive or conclusive but it helps the court, having regard to the other circumstances, to ascertain the intention of the parties.’
The amount received for giving consent is certainly not an advance rent. Can the giving of a consent in relation to user of a capital asset amount to a revenue receipt, even where it is assumed, though not right, that there is no transfer of the capital asset itself (in this case, tenancy rights) by the landlord? The character of a receipt depends upon its relation with the capital asset. For a receipt to be considered as income, it should be a receipt that is of revenue in nature. Normally, the amount received for use of an asset, such as rent, is revenue in nature and is income. However, that logic may not apply to all receipts in relation to a capital asset. Again, for a receipt to be a capital receipt it is not necessary that there should be a transfer of a capital asset or a diminution in value of a capital asset. Transfer of a capital asset is only necessary in order to subject a capital receipt to tax as capital gains.
When a landlord gives his consent for transfer of a tenancy, in substance, he is consenting to grant of the possessory rights to a new tenant. Therefore, he is giving up his possessory rights over the premises in favour of a new tenant. This can be viewed as a right in respect of the premises being agreed to be foregone for the future as well.
Another way of examining the matter is whether the receipt is in relation to a capital asset. The right to consent to a new tenant is also a right associated with the ownership of the immovable property. It is therefore part of the bundle of rights which constitute the immovable property. The exercise of such right in favour of the incoming tenant amounts to exercise of a capital right, the compensation for which would necessarily be capital in nature.
Therefore, the better view of the matter is that the premium received by the landlord for according his consent to transfer of tenancy rights is a capital receipt, subject at best to capital gains tax, and is not a revenue income.
The connected important issue is whether there is any cost of acquiring / holding such a right in the hands of the landlord. Can a part of the cost of acquiring the immovable property be attributed to the cost of the tenancy rights and be claimed and allowed as deduction in computing the capital gains? In our considered opinion, yes, such cost though difficult to ascertain is not an impossible task and should be determined on commercial consideration and be allowed in computing the capital gains arising on grant of the consent to transfer the tenancy rights or for creation of such rights.
Once it is held that the receipt is in the nature of a capital receipt that is liable to tax in the hands of the landlord under the head capital gains, the question of applicability of section 56(2)(x) should not arise. In any case, the receipt, in our opinion, is for a lawful consideration and cannot be subjected to the provisions of this provision that should not have had any place in the Income-tax Act.
