a)The assessee entered into an agreement to purchase a plot. As per the terms of agreement of sale, assessee paid certain sum as advance to the vendor with the understanding to pay the balance at the time of registration.
b)Since the vendor did not act upon the agreement of sale, the assessee filed a suit for specific performance, which ultimately resulted in compromise. A Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) was entered into between the assessee and the land owner in terms of which assessee gave up his claim over property against consideration of Rs. 1.50 crore (including the advance of Rs. 25 lakhs paid by the assessee at the time of agreement of sale).
c)The assessee disclosed said amount as sale consideration received by him for transfer of plot and computed long term capital gain which was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO)
. d)The CIT revised the order of AO with an opinion that amount received by the assessee from the land owner being a windfall gain, should have been assessed as income from other sources and not as long-term capital gain. Aggrieved assessee filed the instant appeal.
The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:
1)Relinquishing or extinguishing one's right over a capital asset amounts to transfer as per section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, when the assessee, as per terms of the MOU, gave up his claim over the property against consideration, certainly it could be interpreted that the assessee had relinquished or extinguished his right over the property.
2)Thus, there was 'transfer' of capital asset within the purview of section 2(47) attracting capital gain.
3)The assessment order passed by AO could not be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, only because the Commissioner considered the receipts as windfall gain and in his opinion such receipt had to be assessed as income from other sources -P. Ramgopal Varma vs. ACIT  47 taxmann.com 334 (Hyderabad - Trib.)