ITO,, Ambala v. Ms. Surinder Kaur, Ambala

ITA 592/CHANDI/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 59221514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABBPD5204H
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 592/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant ITO,, Ambala
Respondent Ms. Surinder Kaur, Ambala
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 10-08-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 17-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES (A) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 561/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 1 V SH. DEVI DAYAL AMBALA. 2154/2 KAZIWARA AMBALA CITY. PAN : ABBPD5204H AND ITA NO. 562/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 1 V SH. RANJIT SINGH AMBALA. 337 MODEL TOWN AMBALA CITY. PAN : BTLPS9914G AND ITA NO. 563/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 1 V SH. AMAR NATH AMBALA. 2154/2 KAZIWARA AMBALA CITY. PAN : AHBPN4034F AND ITA NO. 564/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. NACHHATTAR SINGH AMBALA. S/O LATE SH. AJIT SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA PAN : CFNPS3590H 2 AND ITA NO. 565/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. GURPINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA PAN : CFNPS3171N AND ITA NO. 566/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. HARBANS SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. CHARAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA PAN : BEQPS0788J AND ITA NO. 567/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. HARVINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. NAIB SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA PAN : CGHPS8153F AND ITA NO. 568/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. BALBIR SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. SHER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA PAN : CFNPS2758K AND ITA NO. 569/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. BALDEV SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. JEEVAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BRZPS4850H 3 AND ITA NO. 570/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. BALWINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. KESAR SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BTSPS1970D AND ITA NO. 571/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. BALJIT SINGH AMBALA. S/O LATE SH. RAJINDER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BGDPS9894Q AND ITA NO. 572/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. CHANDA SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. RAM KISHAN VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : AJNPM8021B AND ITA NO. 573/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. DHARAM PAL AMBALA. S/O SH. DEVA RAM VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BBAPP8036P AND ITA NO. 574/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. DAYAL KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. SAMPURAN SINGH VILL. KHANPUR AMBALA. PAN : BHAPK4597A 4 AND ITA NO. 575/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. GURMAIL KAUR AMBALA. D/O LATE SH. RAJINDER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : AZOPK6909K AND ITA NO. 576/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. GURNAM SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CFNPS3171N AND ITA NO. 577/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. AVTAR SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. KESAR SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CFNPS3575Q AND ITA NO. 578/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. AMARJIT KAUR AMBALA. W/O SH. HARPAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5645N AND ITA NO. 579/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. AJAIB SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. JARNAIL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS8065C 5 AND ITA NO. 580/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. AJMERO DEVI AMBALA. W/O SH. SHRI RAM VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : ARKPD2472L AND ITA NO. 581/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. BALWINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. NAIB SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS7598L AND ITA NO. 582/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. JASWINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. SHER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CFKPS7337P AND ITA NO. 583/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. MANTI DEVI AMBALA. D/O SH. HANS RAJ VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : ARKPD2653F AND ITA NO. 584/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. MANJIT KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. RAJINDER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : AKNPK7578C 6 AND ITA NO. 585/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V MS. NASEEB KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. MAAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHJPK6206K AND ITA NO. 586/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. NIRANJAN SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CHKPS0359F AND ITA NO. 587/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. PARAMJIT SINGH AMBALA. D/O LATE SH. MAAN SINGH VPO SAUNDA AMBALA. PAN : BHHPK8322C AND ITA NO. 588/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. PARAMJIT SINGH AMBALA. S/O LATE SH. RAJINDER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : ATXPS0108H AND ITA NO. 589/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. RAJINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. MAAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : AWYPS8232Q 7 AND ITA NO. 590/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. RAJESH KUMAR PUNIA AMBALA. S/O SH. TEK CHAND VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BARPP7242K AND ITA NO. 591/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. SHARDA DEVI AMBALA. D/O SH. HAZARA SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : ARUPD2692N AND ITA NO. 592/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V MS. SURINDER KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. MAAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BFYPK0305L AND ITA NO. 593/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. SWARNJIT KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. HARPAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BIFPK8572C AND ITA NO. 594/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. SANDEEP KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. DEVA RAM VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5923K 8 AND ITA NO. 595/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. SUCHA SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. AJIT SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS8058P AND ITA NO. 596/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. SURINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARDYAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : AQIPS2856C AND ITA NO. 597/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. TEJ KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. JOGINDER SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5912Q AND ITA NO. 598/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. TEJA SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. JEEVAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BQZPS3706B AND ITA NO. 599/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. VIJAY KUMAR AMBALA. S/O SH. TEK CHAND VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5915K 9 AND ITA NO. 600/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. MAHA SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. DALIP SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS8055A AND ITA NO. 601/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. PARAMJIT SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARPAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CFOPS1225L AND ITA NO. 602/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. PARVESH KUMAR AMBALA. S/O SH. TEK CHAND VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5649A AND ITA NO. 603/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. RAM SWAROOP AMBALA. S/O SH. JIVAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CBOPS6381R AND ITA NO. 604/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. RAJINDER KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. SARUP SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5649A 10 AND ITA NO. 605/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. KAMALJEET SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARPAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGHPS7584J AND ITA NO. 606/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. JASBIR KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. DEVA RAM VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BHNPK5925R AND ITA NO. 607/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. KULDIP KAUR AMBALA. D/O SH. HARPAL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : BIFPK8606J AND ITA NO. 608/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. KAKA SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. MAAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CFYPS7278P AND ITA NO. 609/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. KARAMJIT SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. MAAN SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGBPS5241N 11 AND ITA NO. 610/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. HARMESH SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. PHOOL SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : CGRPS7668P AND ITA NO. 611/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SH. BALWINDER SINGH AMBALA. S/O SH. HARBANS SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : AMOPS7180F AND ITA NO. 612/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WARD 3 V SMT. BIRMATI AMBALA. D/O SH. HARI SINGH VPO JANDLI AMBALA. PAN : ARKPD2755L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. SUNITA PURI RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR ADITYA KUMAR & SHIV SINGLA. ORDER PER G.S. PANNU AM IN SO FAR AS THE CAPTIONED BUNCH OF 52 APPEALS IS CONCERNED IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT ISSUE I NVOLVED IS IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A ND BREVITY. 12 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS A COMMON POINT WHICH ARISE S FOR DETERMINATION IS THE ASSESSABILITY OF INTEREST RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AGAIN ST ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VILLA GE SOUNDA DISTRICT. AMBALA. 3. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE APPRECIATION OF THE D ISPUTE AND THE ATTENDANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE MAY TAKE UP F OR DISCUSSION APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEVI DAYA L IN ITA NO. 561/CHD/2010 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 15.03.2010 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO MAIN GROUNDS O F APPEAL : I. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) PANCHKULA IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATI ON IGNORING THE FACT THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY AO IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS GHANSYAM (HUF) 315 ITR 1 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHOLE OF INTEREST RECEIVED BY TH E APPELLANT IS TAXABLE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. II. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) PANCHKULA IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATI ON IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KARNAIL SINGH VS CIT 227 CTR 260 HAS HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS NOT A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION NOR IN THE NATURE OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT ESSENTIALLY THE DISPUTE PERTAINS TO THE DECISION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 IS A PART OF T HE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GHANSHYAM (HUF) 315 ITR 1 13 (SC) THE SAME IS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN VILLAGE SAUNDA AMBALA WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVT. OF HARYANA IN PURSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION D ATED 02.02.1989 ISSUED U/S 4 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND VIDE S UBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION DATED 10.01.1990 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. THE COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED BY TH E LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ESTATES PANCHKULA. ON BEING DISSATISFIED ASSESSEE APPEALED TO ADDL. DISTRICT J UDGE AMBALA WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 06.10.1994 ENHANCED THE COMPENSATI ON AND ALSO AWARDED SOLATIUM ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND INTER EST UNDER SECTIONS 23(2) 23(1A) AND 28 RESPECTIVELY OF THE L AND ACQUISITION ACT 1894. FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE STATE OF HAR YANA WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH CO URT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.1998 AND THE COMPENSATION AWARDED WAS F URTHER ENHANCED WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS UNDER SECTIONS 23( 1A) 23(2) AND 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894. DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE RECEIVED HIS SHARE OF ENHAN CED COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF LAND AMOUNT ING TO RS.17 77 623/- AND INTEREST THEREON AMOUNTING TO RS .40 72 141/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ASSESSEE INCLUDED INTEREST OF ONLY RS.1 18 824/- IN THE TAXA BLE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED OF RS.17 17 623/- WA S EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND ACQU IRED WAS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER IN THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST REC EIVED AMOUNTING TO 14 RS.40 72 141/- SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION ON RECEIPT BASIS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGE MENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHAM HUF (SUPRA). IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DID NOT RELATE TO THIS CASE. THE SUB MISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND IN PARA 3.3 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED AS UNDER : 3.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE WHOLE OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007-08 ON RECEIPT BASIS. ACCORDINGLY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME O F RS.40 72 141/- WAS TAXED ON RECEIPT BASIS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSE SSMENT ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(APPEALS). 5. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED WAS A PART OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND THEREFORE IT WAS ENDOWED WITH THE CHARACTER OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATI ON AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIO N U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) IN THIS REGARD. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGE MENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HELD THAT THE INTEREST RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS A PA RT OF THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS ALSO TO BE ACCORDED EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT AS DONE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO ENHANCED COMPENSATION. AGAINST SUC H A DECISION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 15 6. BEFORE US LEARNED CIT-DR HAS PRIMARILY PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAS DEFENDED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AFORESAID CONTROVERSY A REFERENCE T O THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHAM HUF (SUPRA) IS NECESSARY. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID C ASE WAS DEALING WITH THE TAXABILITY OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION AND IN TEREST THEREON RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE ON ITS LANDS BEING ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ANALYZED THE PROVISIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AND CONSIDERED THE TAXAB ILITY OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND INTEREST THEREON U/S 45(5) OF THE ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 . THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT WAS AS TO WHETHER ADDITION AL AMOUNT U/S 23(1A) SOLITIUM U/S 23(2) INTEREST PAID ON EXCES S COMPENSATION U/S 28 AND INTEREST U/S 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 COULD BE TREATED AS PART OF COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 45(5) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDE R : IT IS TO ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE ANALYSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 23 23(1A) 23( 2) 28 AND 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE S ECTION 23(1A) PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. IT TAKES CAR E OF INCREASE IN THE VALUE AT THE RATE OF 12 PER CENT PE R ANNUM. SIMILARLY UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE 1894 ACT THE RE IS A PROVISION FOR SOLATIUM WHICH ALSO REPRESENTS PART O F ENHANCED COMPENSATION. SIMILARLY SECTION 28 EMPOWE RS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION TO AWARD INTEREST ON TH E EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS AWARD ED BY THE COLLECTOR. IT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL AMOUNT UND ER SECTION 23(1A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23(2) OF THE SAID ACT. SECTION 28 OF THE 1894 ACT APPLIES ONLY I N RESPECT OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE COUR T AFTER REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE 1894 ACT. I T 16 DEPENDS UPON THE CLAIM UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTI ON 34 WHICH DEPENDS ON UNDUE DELAY IN MAKING THE AWARD. I T IS TRUE THAT INTEREST IS NOT COMPENSATION. IT IS EQU ALLY TRUE THAT SECTION 45(5) OF THE 1961 ACT REFERS TO COMPEN SATION. BUT AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE WE HAVE TO GO BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT WHICH AWARD INTEREST B OTH AS AN ACCRETION IN THE VALUE OF THE LANDS ACQUIRED AND INTEREST FOR UNDUE DELAY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 28 UNLIKE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 34 IS AN ACCRETION TO THE VA LUE HENCE IT IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH INTEREST U NDER SECTION 34 OF THE 1894 ACT. SO ALSO ADDITIONAL AMOU NT UNDER SECTION 23(1A) AND SOLATIUM UNDER SECTION 23( 2) OF THE 1894 ACT FORMS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION UN DER SECTION 45(5)(B) OF THE 1961 ACT. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID IT IS EVIDENT THAT AS PER THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT PAYMENTS MADE U/S 23(1A) OR SECTION 23(2) OR U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 REFLECT PART OF E NHANCED COMPENSATION. IN CONTRAST INTEREST U/S 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS A PART O F ENHANCED COMPENSATION. ACCORDINGLY IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTI ON 45(5)(B) OF THE ACT IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED UND ER SECTION 23(1A) 23(2) AND 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1 894 IN CONTRAST TO A PAYMENT U/S 34 OF THE 1894 ACT WERE TO BE TREATE D AS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 4 5(5)(B) OF THE ACT. KEEPING IN MIND THIS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEM ENT WE MAY NOW COME BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US . 9. IN THIS CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOUND THAT TH E INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION I S IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894. THER EFORE AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G HANSHAM HUF (SUPRA) THE SAME PARTAKES THE NATURE OF ENHANCED C OMPENSATION ITSELF. THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE EXEMPT U/S 10(3 7) OF THE ACT SINCE THE LANDS ACQUIRED WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. C ONSEQUENTLY THE 17 INTEREST RECEIVED IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAN D ACQUISITION ACT 1894 IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE ACCORDED THE SAME EXEMPTI ON. WE FIND NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ADVERSE TO THE AFORESAID PROPOSI TION. IN FACT IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING ASSESSING OFFICER FURNI SHED A REPORT DATED 28.06.2010 WHICH REFERS TO A COMMUNICATION O F THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER URBAN ESTATES PANCHKULA DATED 18.06.2010 WHICH INTER-ALIA CONFIRMS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N PAID INTEREST IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 18 94 IN PURSUANCE TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT DATED 24.12.1998. A COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION HAS A LSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID MAT ERIAL WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY T HE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST U/S 28 OF T HE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTI ON U/S 10(37) OF THE ACT ON THE SAME FOOTING AS ACCORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO THE AMOUNT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION U/S 10(37) OF T HE ACT BECAUSE THE ACQUIRED LANDS WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. 10. IN FACT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WRONGLY ENTERTAINED FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CALCULATION SHEET IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT THE INTERES T RECEIVED IN QUESTION WAS IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQ UISITION ACT 1894. ON THIS BASIS THE REVENUE HAS SOUGHT TO CON TEND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WRONGLY INFERRED THAT THE INTEREST REC EIVED WAS PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THE AFORESAID PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS U NDER : WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKULA IS JUSTIF IED IN ADMITTING THE FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CALCUL ATION SHEET FILED AS PER PARA 4 OF THE ORDER AND NOT CONF RONTING IT TO THE A.O. AND NOT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO TH E A.O. TO 18 DEFEND HIS VIEW VIOLATING THEREBY THE RULE 46A OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE B EEN HEARD WITH RESPECT TO THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE AFORESAID ADD ITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. IN OUR VIEW THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED B Y THE REVENUE IS ENTIRELY MIS-CONCEIVED AS THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WOULD SHOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER CONCLUDED THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING PART OF ENH ANCED COMPENSATION IS INCLUDED THE AFORESAID CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE I NTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PART OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION. I N THIS MANNER THE FINDING OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE INTEREST I N QUESTION IS RECEIVED U/S 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 A ND THEREFORE IT PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS NOT A FINDING CONTRADICTORY TO THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS MANIFESTED IN PARA 3.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES WE FIND LITTLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SOUG HT TO BE RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO CONTEND CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN ANY CASE THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.06.2010 A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING CLEARLY BRI NGS OUT THAT THE INTEREST IN QUESTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN TERMS OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL S OUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. APART FROM THE AFORESAID IT IS CONTENDED BY TH E REVENUE THAT THE INTEREST IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) AND THAT THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & 19 HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNAIL SINGH (S UPRA) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SANT RAM & OTHERS VS UOI ( CWP NO. 12478 OF 2009 DATED 20.10.2009) SUPPORT THE STAND THAT THE INTERE ST IN QUESTION IS TAXABLE. AS PER THE REVENUE IN THE SAID JUDGEMENTS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF CO MPENSATION DETERMINED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 IS TAXABLE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID JUDGE MENTS IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE LATER PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA). FURTH ER THE PLEA THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST IS TAXABLE ON RECEIPT BASIS IS NOT RE LEVANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE TIME OF TAXABILITY WILL ARISE ONL Y IN CASE A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN THIS CASE INTEREST HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE OF THE NATURE OF ENHANCED COMPENSA TION AND THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION RECEIVED HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NON-TAXABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE INTERES T INCOME HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ACCORDED EXEMPTION BY THE CIT(APPEALS) . THUS THE EXEMPTION ALLOWED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) TO THE IMPUGN ED INTEREST INCOME IS NOT VITIATED BY THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS S ET UP BY THE REVENUE. 14. ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH HAS BEEN SET UP BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) WAS DEALING WITH AN INCOME A SSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS WHEREAS THE INTEREST INCOME IN QUESTION HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION TH E DISTINCTION SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT OUT BY THE REVENUE IS MISPLACE D. IT IS QUITE WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TAX LIABILITY IS TO BE DET ERMINED WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF INCOME IN TERMS OF THE APPLICABLE LEGA L POSITION. 20 15. WE MAY ALSO REFER TO ANOTHER ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE LEARNED DR THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYA M HUF (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE AND THEREFORE IN TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM TAKING THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE AFOR ESAID ARGUMENT SET UP BY THE LEARNED DR IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AN ADMISSION OR ACQUIESCENCE CANNOT BE THE FOUNDATION FOR AN ASSESSMENT WHERE A CLAIM IS MADE UNDER AN ERRONE OUS IMPRESSION OR MIS-CONCEPTION OF LAW. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A STAND WHICH IS FOUND TO BE UND ER AN ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION OR MIS-CONCEPTION OF LAW IT IS ALWAYS O PEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE AND SATISFY THE AUTHORITIES THAT A PARTICULAR INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE IN HIS HANDS AND THAT THE ST AND TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNDER AN ERRONEOUS IMPRES SION OF LAW. FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION A GAINFUL REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAYNAK PODDAR HUF V WEALTH TAX OFFICER 262 ITR 633 (CAL) . TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ABDUL QAYUME V CIT 184 ITR 404 (ALL). THEREFOR E FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF GHANSHYAM HUF (SUPRA) DID NOT APPLY TO HIS CASE T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF THE LAW PROPOUNDED THEREIN. THE SAID DECISION IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE AND THE CIT(APPEALS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN ACCEPTING THE PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE. 21 16. IN VIEW OF OUR AFORESAID DISCUSSION WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 17. IN THE RESULT THEREOF WE DISMISS THE APPEAL RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 561/CHD/2010 (SUPRA). 18. SINCE IN THE OTHER CAPTIONED APPEALS THE ISSUE RAISED IS IDENTICAL OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.561/CHD/2010 APPL IES MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN OTHER APPEALS ALSO. 19. RESULTANTLY THE CAPTIONED 52 APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.08.2010. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ( G.S.PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED : 10 TH AUG. 2010. POONAM COPY TO : THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT (A)/ THE CIT/THE DR.