Smt. Padmaben S.Valand, Bharuch v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2,, Bharuch

CO 46/AHD/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4620523 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AEJPV3272L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number CO 46/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Padmaben S.Valand, Bharuch
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-2,, Bharuch
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 05-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 05-07-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 15-02-2010
Judgment Text
C.O. 34/AHD/10 TO 46/AHD/2010 A.Y.91-92 TO 2003-04 1 IN THE INCOME_TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFOR SHRI_D.C. AGRAWAL CROSS OBJECTION NO . I.T. A. NO ASSESSMENT YEAR. 34/AHD/2010 91/AHD/2010 1991-92 35/AHD/2010 92/AHD/2010 1992-93 36/AHD/2010 93/AHD/2010 1993-94 37/AHD/2010 94/AHD/2010 1994-95 38/AHD/2010 95/AHD/2010 1995-96 39/AHD/2010 96/AHD/2010 1996-97 40/AHD/2010 97/AHD/2010 1997-98 41/AHD/2010 98/AHD/2010 1998-99 42/AHD/2010 99/AHD/2010 1999-00 43/AHD/2010 100/AHD/2010 2000-01 44/AHD/2010 101/AHD/2010 2001-02 45/AHD/2010 102/AHD/2010 2002-03 46/AHD/2010 103/AHD/2010 2003-04 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 BHARUCH. VS SMT. PADMABENS.VALAND BAZAR AT VAGRA DIST: BHARUCH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AEJPV 3272 L BY DEPARTMENT : SHRI. P.R.GHOSH. BY ASSESSEE : SHRI SUNIL TALATI. ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER PER SHR D.C. AGRAWAL A.M. THESE ARE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST RESPECTIVE I.T.A.NOS.91/AHD/10 TO 103/AHD/10. THE INCOME TAX A PPEALS WERE DISPOSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 10-2-2010. T HE LD.D.R. POINTED OUT THAT C.O. 34/AHD/10 TO 46/AHD/2010 A.Y.91-92 TO 2003-04 2 ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE FILED ON 15-2-2010 AN D THEREFORE WERE FILED AFTER CONCERNED ITAS WERE DISPOSED OF. ON THE OTHER HAND LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE COS WERE FILED WITHIN TIME PERMISSIBLE UNDE R THE LAW. THEREFORE THEY WERE WITHIN TIME AND VALID. 2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS WE ADMIT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEES RIGHT TO FILE THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS CANNOT BE CURTAILED IF THEY ARE WITHIN TIME. THE TIME LIMIT CANNOT BE THRE ATENED BECAUSE MAIN APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF. IN OTHER WORDS RIGHT TO FILE C.O. IS GENERATED MOMENT APPEAL IS FILED BY ONE PARTY. THE LIMITATION TO FIL E C.O. IS PROVIDED UNDER LAW AND CANNOT BE CURTAILED MERELY BECAUSE INCOME TAX A PPEAI HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF JUST BEFORE FILING OF C.O. IN OUR VIEW THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. D.R IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND HENCE REJECTED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON CROSS OBJECTIONS AS UNDER :- 1. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LD.C.I.T.(A) PRESENTS THIS CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONST OTHER GROUNDS. 2. THE LD.C.I.T.(A) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST IN RESPECT OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS REVENUE INCOME. T HE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 IS A PART OF COMPENSATION AND THE LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND THE SAME WAS EXEM PT FROM TAX. IT BE SO HELD NOW IN VIEW OF DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN CI T VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) 315 ITR-1 (SC). 4. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST WH ICH CROSS OBJECTIONS HAS BEEN FILED THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) 315 ITR-1 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT INTER EST GRANTED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WOULD BE INTEREST GRANTED U/S. 28 UNDE R LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME WOULD BE A PART OF THE COMP ENSATION SO PAID WHEREAS INTEREST GRANTED FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATI ON WOULD CARRY ON A NATURE OF INTEREST AND ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE SEPARATELY TAX ABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER C.O. 34/AHD/10 TO 46/AHD/2010 A.Y.91-92 TO 2003-04 3 SOURCES. FURTHER ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS GRANTED I N RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AND THEREFORE INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMP ENSATION WOULD CARRY THE CHARACTER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THEREFORE IS EXEMPT. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THESE ISSUES THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF LD. C.I.T.(A) AS UNDER :- 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SO FAR AS THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LATER PART OF PARA GRAPH 4.2.1 WHICH ARE OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. ARE CONCERNED ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. SO FAR AS RELIANCE OF THE LD. D.R . ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER ARE CONCERNED THE REVENUE HAVING BEEN NOT RAISED ANY G ROUND WITH REGARD TO THESE ISSUES THE INFERENCE OF THE LD. D. R. IS OF NO USE. 5. SINCE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE SAME ISSUE IS C OVERED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WE RESTORE T HE CROSS OBJECTIONS ALSO TO THE FILE OF LD. C.I.T.(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE A FRESH. 6. AS A RESULT ALL THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THE ORDERS ARE PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 8. CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5 / 7 /2010. SD/- (D. C. AGRAWA L) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. C.O. 34/AHD/10 TO 46/AHD/2010 A.Y.91-92 TO 2003-04 4 AHMEDABAD. DATED: 5/ 07 /2010. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR. ITAT AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGIST RAR ITAT AHMEDABAD.