CIT, FARIDABAD vs. HORAM (INDL.) ANKHIR FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/188/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093095201005 July 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the matter was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF). Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the ITAT and CIT(A), and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to determine the year of taxability afresh in accordance with the principles laid down in the Ghanshyam (HUF) case. The Court made it clear that if the assessee was aggrieved by the fresh assessment, they could approach the High Court again. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court opted for a remand for a fresh determination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Horam (Indl.) and Prasadi, had their land acquired, and the Assessing Officer taxed the compensation in assessment year 2000-01. The CIT(A) set aside this decision, stating the income had not accrued as the compensation issue was pending appeal. This was upheld by the ITAT, relying on a High Court judgment. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF) subsequently rendered the High Court judgment obsolete. The Revenue filed appeals against the ITAT's orders for assessment year 2000-01. The High Court noted that identical matters were being remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination of taxability in light of the Ghanshyam (HUF) case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should decide the taxability of compensation for land acquisition in assessment year 2000-01, or remand the matter for fresh determination by the Assessing Officer in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. However, the procedural history indicates the assessee's position was that the income had not accrued in the year of assessment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, argued that the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination of the year of taxability, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case. The Revenue also did not press for notice to the respondent-assessee, deeming it unnecessary given the remand direction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Horam (Indl.) ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the appellant.

1.

This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 188 and 189 of 2010. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C”, New Delhi in ITA No. 3216/(Del)/08 for the assessment year 2000-01. 3. The land of the assessee was acquired. The Assessing Officer taxed the compensation in the year, i.e. 2000-01. On appeal, the CIT (A) vide his order dated 25.8.2008 set aside the decision of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the matter was pending in appeal and till the issue of compensation was finalized, the income cannot be said to have accrued or arisen, which was upheld by the Tribunal following the judgment of this Court in Chandi Ram and others v. CIT, -2- 217 CTR (P&H) 113. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ghanshyam (HUF), (2009) 315 ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid judgment no longer stands.

4.

Identical matters bearing ITA Nos. 133, 143, 145, 146 and 159 of 2010 have been taken up today and on the statement of learned counsel for the parties, the matters have been remanded to the Assessing Officer for determining the year of taxability afresh in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra).

5.

Since the matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra) and is being remanded to the Assessing Officer to look into it afresh in view of orders passed in similar cases, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondent as it would serve no useful purpose.

6.

In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for determining the year of taxability afresh in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam (HUF)'s case (supra). It is, however, made clear that if the respondent-assessee is aggrieved by this, he can approach this Court. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 189 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.7.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Prasadi ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the appellant.

For orders, see ITA No. 188 of 2010 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Horam (Indl.)] (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →